1

Filed 1/12/23 P. v. Navarro CA1/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JORGE LEON NAVARRO,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A165489

 (Solano County

 Super. Ct. No. FCR302303)

Defendant Jorge Leon Navarro appeals from a May 4, 2022 order 

denying his petition for resentencing of his attempted murder conviction

under Penal Code1 former section 1170.95, now section 1172.6.2 We affirm. 

Section 1172.6 allows a defendant to petition for resentencing if 

convicted of attempted murder under the now invalid natural and probable 

consequences theory. (Id., subd. (a).) At the hearing held on Navarro’s 

petition, his assigned counsel confirmed that a review of the record of 

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered section 1170.95 to 

section 1172.6. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) There were no substantive 

changes to the statute. Throughout this opinion, we cite to section 1172.6 for 

ease of reference.
2

conviction — including the court’s jury instructions — reflected that Navarro 

was not convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable 

consequences theory. After the trial prosecutor concurred with assigned 

counsel’s assessment of the record, the superior court summarily denied the 

petition on the basis that Navarro was not statutorily eligible for section 

1172.6 relief.

Navarro’s appellate counsel has filed a brief raising no issues and asks 

us to independently review the record under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 

436 (Wende).

3 Appellate counsel has further confirmed that Navarro was 

informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, but he has not filed such a 

brief. 

Since the completion of the briefing in this appeal, our Supreme Court 

decided People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) on December 

19, 2022. Delgadillo holds that when appointed counsel determines that an 

appeal from an order denying postconviction relief, such as the order denying 

Navarro’s section 1172.6 petition, lacks arguable merit, “Wende procedures 

are not constitutionally compelled.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 233.) 

However, “[w]hen counsel submits notice that such an appeal lacks arguable 

merit, the Court of Appeal should provide notice to the defendant that 

counsel was unable to find any arguable issues; the defendant may file a 

supplemental brief or letter raising any argument the defendant wishes the 

court to consider; and if no such supplemental brief or letter is timely filed, 

the court may dismiss the appeal as abandoned.” (Id. at p. 222.) “If the 

3 To facilitate this review, we grant appellate counsel’s motion to 

augment the record to include certain portions of the trial transcripts filed on 

Navarro’s direct appeal of his conviction, which include the jury instruction 

discussion and the jury instructions given at trial. (People v. Navarro (dec. 

Sept. 19, 2019, A151606) [nonpub. opn.].)
3

appeal is dismissed as abandoned, the Court of Appeal does not need to write 

an opinion but should notify the defendant when it dismisses the matter.” 

(Id. at p. 232.) 

Because the briefing in this case was completed in September 2022, 

Navarro was not given Delgadillo notice that this court might dismiss the 

appeal as abandoned if he failed to file a supplemental brief. In the interest 

of judicial economy, we exercise our discretion to independently review the 

record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232 [“[w]hile it is wholly within

the court’s discretion, the Court of Appeal is not barred from conducting its 

own independent review of the record in any individual section 1172.6 

appeal”].) 

Having independently reviewed the record, we find no arguable issues 

that warrant further briefing by appellate counsel. The record reflects that 

at trial the jurors were instructed that to convict Navarro of attempted 

murder they had to find he had the specific intent to murder the victim when 

he chose to aid and abet the perpetrator of the attempted murder. Because 

Navarro was not convicted of attempted murder under the natural and 

probable consequences theory, the superior court properly determined he was 

statutorily ineligible for section 1172.6 relief. Accordingly, the order denying

the petition for resentencing is affirmed.

DISPOSITION

The May 4, 2022 order denying the petition for resentencing is 

affirmed. 
4

_________________________

Petrou, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________

Tucher, P.J.

_________________________

Fujisaki, J.

A165489/People v. Navarro