Full Opinion

Filed 10/29/26 P. v. Larry CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO THE PEOPLE, B351255 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A622065) v. MICHAEL ANTIONE LARRY, Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: Defendant and appellant Michael Antione Larry (defendant) appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.6.1 Defendant’s appointed counsel identified no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record as set forth in People v. 1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We affirm. BACKGROUND In 1985, a jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a); count 1), two counts of robbery (§ 211; counts 2 & 3), attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211; count 4), and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a); counts 5 & 6). The jury found true the special circumstance allegation that defendant committed the murder while engaged in the commission of a robbery (§ 192, subd. (a)(17)). The jury further found that defendant personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5 as to all counts, and that defendant inflicted great bodily injury upon the victim within the meaning of section 12022.7 as to counts 4 and 5. Defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. In 2023, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. There was no dispute that the jury was instructed on the felony-murder rule. The People argued that the jury necessarily found defendant to be the actual killer because the jury was not instructed on the general principles of aiding and abetting and found that defendant personally used a firearm during the commission of the crimes. The trial court denied the petition, finding that defendant did not establish a prima facie case that he was convicted under an imputed malice theory. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we 2 are not required to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we do not independently review the record to identify unraised issues in a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his or her own supplemental brief or letter, and we then evaluate any specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.) Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record on appeal and informed him of his right to file his own supplemental brief. We notified defendant of counsel’s brief and gave defendant 91 days to file his own letter or brief stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished to be considered, and if he did not the appeal would be dismissed. Defendant filed a supplemental brief within the time allowed. In it, defendant asserts that he was “constructively denied counsel during trial” because his appointed counsel “refused to use diminished capacity as a defense during the guilt phase of trial.” Instead, appointed counsel argued to the jury that defendant “was not the shooter.” According to defendant, “[he] faced a jury that could only be profoundly annoyed by this ludicrous defense in the face of overwhelming evidence of culpability.” Defendant’s argument is not relevant to the issues raised in his section 1172.6 petition. Defendant did not raise an ineffective assistance claim before the trial court in this petition, and none is currently before us on appeal. Therefore, defendant’s arguments have no merit. 3 DISPOSITION The order is affirmed. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS. —————————————————————————————— LUI, P. J. RICHARDSON, J. GOORVITCH, J. 4