People v. Sorto CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Defendant’s contentions are all aimed at his underlying trial. In particular, he claims the prosecution relied on improper evidence to prove the gang allegation, he was given an excessive sentence, and there is insufficient evidence to support the jury’s finding he acted with the intent to kill. Defendant also broadly asserts that undefined misconduct rendered his trial fundamentally unfair. However, section 1172.6 was designed to allow defendants to seek the benefit of statutory amendments that narrowed the scope of California’s murder laws. (People v. Farfan (2021) 71 Cal.App.5th 942, 947.) The statute “does not afford the petitioner a new opportunity to raise claims of trial error or attack the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the jury’s findings.” (Ibid.) Therefore, defendant’s claims are not cognizable in this appeal. (Ibid.) Moreover, the trial court’s ruling on defendant’s petition was indisputably correct. A defendant may be eligible for resentencing for attempted murder if he was convicted on a theory of imputed liability. (§ 1172.6, subd. (a).) But defendant’s jury was not instructed on any such theory. Rather, he was tried as the actual perpetrator of…