Filed 7/18/24 P. v. Tolfree 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

DAVONTE KENDRE 

TOLFREE,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B328633

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. TA092936)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, John J. Lonergan, Jr., Judge. Affirmed.

Patricia J. Ulibarri, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief 

Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Thomas C. Hsieh, 

Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Davonte Kendre Tolfree appeals from an order 

denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code 

section 1172.6.1 We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

In 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of 

willful, deliberate, and premeditated attempted murder (§§ 664, 

187, subd. (a)) and found true as to both counts that defendant 

personally used and discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)–

(d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to 32 years to life on 

count 1 and imposed the same sentence on count 2, to be served 

concurrently. A different panel of this court affirmed the 

judgment. (People v. Tolfree (Aug. 12, 2009, B208151) [nonpub. 

opn.]).

On February 28, 2022, defendant filed a petition for 

resentencing under section 1172.62; and on June 13, 2022, he 

filed a revised petition. On August 11, 2022, the District 

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 

Defendant filed his petition pursuant to section 1170.95, which 

the Legislature renumbered section 1172.6 effective June 30, 

2022, with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) For 

clarity, we will refer to section 1172.6 throughout this opinion.

2 Defendant filed his petition without the assistance of 

counsel. By the time the Los Angeles County District Attorney

(District Attorney) responded, the trial court had appointed 

counsel to represent defendant.
3

Attorney filed an opposition to the petition, attaching, among 

other documents, the jury instructions from defendant’s trial. 

The District Attorney argued that defendant was ineligible for 

relief as a matter of law because the jury had not been instructed 

on aiding and abetting or the natural and probable consequences 

doctrine. On January 24, 2023, defendant filed a reply.

On January 26, 2023, the trial court denied the petition, 

concluding that defendant had failed to make a prima facie 

showing that he was entitled to relief because the record of 

conviction demonstrated that defendant was the only participant 

and actual shooter. Defendant timely appealed.

III. DISCUSSION

Section 1172.6, subdivision (a) provides in relevant part: 

“A person convicted of felony murder or murder under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine or other theory 

under which malice is imputed to a person based solely on that 

person’s participation in a crime, attempted murder under the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine, or manslaughter 

may file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to 

have the petitioner’s murder, attempted murder, or 

manslaughter conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any 

remaining counts . . . .”

Section 1172.6 “creates a procedure for convicted murderers 

[and attempted murderers] who could not be convicted under the 

law as amended to retroactively seek relief.” (People v. Lewis

(2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 957 (Lewis); People v. Drayton (2020) 47 

Cal.App.5th 965, 973 (Drayton), overruled on other grounds by 

Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 963.) “If the petitioner makes a 
4

prima facie showing that the petitioner is entitled to relief, the 

court shall issue an order to show cause.” (§ 1172.6, subd. (c).)

“While the trial court may look at the record of conviction 

after the appointment of counsel to determine whether a 

petitioner has made a prima facie case for section [1172.6] relief, 

the prima facie inquiry under subdivision (c) is limited. Like the 

analogous prima facie inquiry in habeas corpus proceedings, ‘“the 

court takes petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a 

preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would 

be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

If so, the court must issue an order to show cause.”’ (Drayton,

supra, 47 Cal.App.5th at p. 978, quoting Cal. Rules of Court, rule 

4.551(c)(1).) ‘[A] court should not reject the petitioner’s factual 

allegations on credibility grounds without first conducting an 

evidentiary hearing.’ (Drayton, [supra, 47 Cal.App.5th] at p. 978, 

fn. omitted . . . .) ‘However, if the record, including the court’s 

own documents, “contain[s] facts refuting the allegations made in 

the petition,” then “the court is justified in making a credibility 

determination adverse to the petitioner.”’ (Drayton, [supra, 47 

Cal.App.5th] at p. 979 . . . .)” (Lewis, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 971.)

We review de novo the trial court’s determination that a 

defendant failed to make a section 1172.6 prima facie showing. 

(People v. Williams (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1244, 1251.)

Section 1172.6 applies only to attempted murders based on 

the natural and probable consequences doctrine. (People v. Coley

(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 548 [section 1172.6, subdivision (a)(1) 

“applies by its terms only to attempted murders based on the 

natural and probable consequences doctrine”].) The jurors here 

were not instructed on that doctrine. Nor were they instructed 

on the felony murder theory or on aiding and abetting. 
5

Defendant is accordingly ineligible for relief and the kill zone 

instruction he now challenges on appeal is inconsequential. 

(People v. Lovejoy (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 860, 865; People v. 

Coley, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 548; see also 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”].)

IV. DISPOSITION

The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing 

pursuant to section 1172.6 is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

BAKER, Acting P. J.

LEE, J.

 Judge of the San Bernardino Superior Court, assigned by 

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

California Constitution.