Filed 7/26/23 P. v. Aremu 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

TONY OLIVER AREMU,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B322491

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. A390607)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Norman J. Shapiro, Judge. Affirmed.

Nancy L. Tetreault, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

In 1984, a jury convicted defendant Tony Aremu of second 

degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)1) and found true the 

allegation that he personally used a deadly and dangerous 

weapon in the commission of the murder (§ 12022, subd. (b)). The 

trial court sentenced defendant to 16 years to life in state prison.

In 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing 

pursuant to former section 1170.95.2 The trial court denied the 

petition on the ground that defendant was the actual killer. 

Defendant appealed. We affirmed the court’s order, holding that 

defendant was ineligible for resentencing as a matter of law 

because the jury instructions in defendant’s case did not include 

instructions on aiding and abetting, the felony murder rule, or 

the natural and probable consequences doctrine, and the verdict 

form contained the jury’s finding that defendant personally used 

a deadly and dangerous weapon, a knife. (People v. Aremu

(Oct. 26, 2020, B300328) [nonpub. opn.].)

On January 13, 2021, our Supreme Court granted 

defendant’s petition for review and deferred further action 

pending its consideration and disposition of People v. Lewis

(2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1128 or further order of the court.

On September 29, 2021, after issuing its opinion in People 

v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, the Supreme Court dismissed 

review in defendant’s case.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Effective June 30, 2022, the Legislature renumbered 

section 1170.95 to section 1172.6 with no change in text. (Stats. 

2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Further references will be to the statute’s 

current section number only.
3

On April 18, 2022, following our remittitur to the trial 

court, defendant filed a second section 1172.6 petition for 

resentencing. The court denied the petition on the ground that 

defendant was the actual killer and therefore ineligible for relief.

Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent 

him. Counsel filed an opening brief in which she does not 

identify any arguable issues and requests that we evaluate any 

issues defendant might raise in a supplemental brief and 

independently review those portions of the record necessary to 

resolve any such arguments pursuant to People v Delgadillo

(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Further, counsel notes that 

under Delgadillo we have discretion to conduct an “independent 

review of the record in the interest of justice.” (Id. at p. 230.)

On January 25, 2023, we notified defendant that appointed 

appellate counsel had filed a brief that raises no issues and 

defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental 

brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, or contentions, 

or arguments that he wished this court to consider. Defendant 

timely filed a supplemental brief in which he argues that the 

evidence at his trial combined with evidence not presented or 

withheld by the prosecution prove that he killed his victim, 

Tamzetta Harris, in a heat of passion and thus was guilty of 

manslaughter and not second degree murder. Defendant argues 

the evidence shows he had been romantically involved with 

Harris who, allegedly, was having a secret, adulterous 

relationship with Theodore Monroe. On the night defendant 

killed Harris, he saw her exiting Monroe’s car. Defendant 

became enraged and killed Harris in a heat of passion. 

Defendant also argues, without explanation, that the prosecution 
4

failed to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt thus violating 

his right to a fair trial.

Although we have discretion to review independently the 

entire record, we limit our review to the issues raised in 

defendant’s supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at 

232 [where the 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 it is “wholly within the 

court’s discretion” whether to conduct an independent review of 

the entire record].)

The arguments defendant raises in his supplemental brief 

do not address his eligibility for resentencing under section 

1172.6. Defendant’s evidentiary claims do not bear on whether 

he 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).) Accordingly, we reject

those arguments in this appeal from the trial court’s 

postjudgment order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 petition. 

(See, e.g., People v. DeHuff (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 428, 438, fn. 

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

eligibility on the basis of alleged trial error”].)
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying defendant’s section 1172.6 

petition is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

We concur:

RUBIN, P. J.

BAKER, J.