KIM, J.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. VA069394, Maria Andrea Davalos, Judge. Affirmed.
California Appellate Project, Richard Lennon and Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KIM, J.
In 2003, a jury convicted defendant Bruce David Koklich of second degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a) .) The trial court sentenced defendant to 15 years to life in state prison.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On July 26, 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to former section 1170.95. Defendant alleged a complaint, information, or indictment was filed against him that allowed the prosecution to proceed under a theory of felony murder, murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, or another theory under which malice was imputed to him based solely on his participation in a crime; he was convicted of murder; and he could not presently be convicted of murder because of changes to sections 188 and 189. He requested counsel be appointed for him. The trial court appointed counsel for defendant.
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.
The District Attorney of Los Angeles County (District Attorney) filed a response to the petition that argued defendant was ineligible for resentencing because the jury was not instructed on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or any other theory of culpability that imputed malice to defendant; the jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting; and defendant was prosecuted as the actual killer who acted with actual malice. The District Attorney attached copies of the Court of Appeal opinion affirming defendant's conviction, the jury instructions from defendant's trial, and the verdict form.
The trial court set the matter for a prima facie hearing on April 14, 2023.
At the April 14, 2023, hearing, the parties submitted on the papers. The trial court denied the petition on the ground that defendant was ineligible for relief as a matter of law. The court found the jury was not instructed on felony murder, natural and probable consequences, or any other theory of liability that imputed malice to defendant; the jury was not instructed on aiding and abetting; and defendant was the sole person prosecuted and was prosecuted as the actual killer who acted with actual malice.
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. On December 14, 2023, counsel filed an opening brief in which counsel did not identify any arguable issues and requested that we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). The same day, we notified defendant that appointed counsel had filed an opening brief that did not raise any issues and defendant had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments that he wished us to consider.
On January 16, 2024, defendant filed a supplemental brief apparently arguing that because of changes to the "Indeterminate Sentencing Law," the trial court was without jurisdiction to sentence him. Defendant's argument is meritless. The court did not lack jurisdiction (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 10) and in any event, defendant's argument does not address his eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.6. (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"].)
Finally, although we have discretion to review independently the entire record, we limit our review to the issue raised in defendant's supplemental brief. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 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].)
DISPOSITION
The trial court's order denying defendant's section 1172.6 petition is affirmed.
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.