Filed 5/31/24 P. v. Paniagua-Herrera CA2/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN MARTIN PANIAGUAHERRERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B329900

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. PA040317)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, David Walgren, Judge. Affirmed.

Patricia S. Lai, under appointment by the Court of Appeal 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________
2

In 2005, following a court trial, the trial court found Juan 

Martin Paniagua-Herrera guilty of second degree murder (Pen. 

Code, § 187, subd. (a)(1)).1 He was sentenced to 15 years to life in 

prison.

In 2022, Paniagua-Herrera filed a petition for resentencing 

pursuant to former section 1170.95 (now section 1172.6). At the 

hearing, defense counsel conceded that Paniagua-Herrera was 

the only defendant charged. At trial, Paniagua-Herrera argued 

diminished capacity and self-defense. The trial court denied the 

petition because Paniagua-Herrera failed to show he was 

convicted under an invalid theory of murder. He was not 

prosecuted as an aider and abettor and there was no indication 

that malice could have been imputed to him. 

Paniagua-Herrera appealed, and this court appointed 

counsel to represent him. After examining the record, PaniaguaHerrera’s attorney filed an opening brief raising no issues and 

asking that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. 

Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Counsel also 

requested that we conduct an independent review of the record. 

We invited Paniagua-Herrera to submit a supplemental brief, 

which he did.

We decline to conduct an independent review of the record 

as counsel requested, and we limit our consideration to the

specific issues Paniagua-Herrera raises in his letter response 

filed in this court.

2 (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Paniagua-Herrera’s February 13, 2024 request that we 

take judicial notice of the appellate record in Case No. B183673 is 

denied.
3

[where a defendant’s attorney finds no arguable issues in an 

appeal from the denial of a section 1172.6 petition and the 

defendant files a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is 

required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that 

brief and to issue a written opinion,” but the question of whether 

to conduct an independent review of the entire record is “wholly 

within the court’s discretion”].) 

Paniagua-Herrera submitted a two-page letter brief. None 

of the arguments raised in Paniagua-Herrera’s supplemental 

brief address his eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6 

or have any bearing on whether Paniagua-Herrera could 

“presently be convicted of murder or attempted murder because 

of changes to Section 188 or 189 made effective January 1, 2019.” 

(§ 1172.6, subd. (a)(3).) Rather, he argues that: (1) the knife that 

was recovered was inconsistent with a witness’s description of the 

weapon; (2) the victim threatened a woman with a knife in a bar 

earlier on the night of the murder; (3) a witness who would have 

testified regarding prior incidents involving the victim did not

testify because her family was threatened; and (4) trial counsel 

rendered ineffective assistance by failing to investigate and 

interview two witnesses. Section 1172.6 provides no relief for 

trial error. (See, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 

438 [section 1172.6 “does not permit a petitioner to establish 

eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error”].) Accordingly, these 

arguments provide no basis for reversal. 
4

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying Paniagua-Herrera’s Penal 

Code section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED. 

MOOR, J.

WE CONCUR:

BAKER, Acting P. J. 

LEE, J.

 Judge of the San Bernardino County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.