Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Laron Depaul Gipson appealed from the denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.6. In 2000, a jury convicted him of first degree murder and found true the allegation that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, subdivision (d). He received a sentence of 50 years to life, and the judgment was affirmed on direct appeal in 2002.
Gipson filed his resentencing petition in 2025. The trial court appointed counsel and issued a tentative order denying relief because Gipson was the actual shooter and directly participated in the murder, the jury specifically found that he personally used a firearm causing death, and the jury had not been instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable consequences liability doctrine, or any other theory that could impute malice to him. His counsel made a brief record and submitted on the tentative order, after which Gipson timely appealed.
On appeal, appointed counsel identified no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting that the court exercise its discretion to conduct an independent review under People v. Delgadillo. Counsel provided Gipson with the appellate record and informed him of his right to submit his own brief. The court also notified him of counsel's filing and allowed 30 days to state any grounds or arguments. Gipson timely filed a supplemental brief arguing that he expected resentencing under People v. Pittman and subsequent youth-offender laws.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that, where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal that is not the first appeal after conviction, the court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record. The defendant must nevertheless receive an opportunity to submit a supplemental brief or letter, and the appellate court must evaluate any specific arguments raised. The court therefore addressed Gipson's contention rather than treating counsel's no-issue brief as resolving the appeal by itself.
The court distinguished Pittman, which involved a defendant convicted of second-degree implied-malice murder as an aider and abettor. Pittman reversed a denial of section 1172.6 relief because the trial court had not considered the defendant's youth when determining whether he acted with implied malice by intentionally aiding the direct perpetrator's life-endangering act that proximately caused death.
That reasoning did not apply to Gipson. He was not convicted under an implied-malice theory; he was the actual shooter who personally used a firearm to commit the murder, and the jury was not instructed on any implied-malice theories. Citing People v. Solis for the proposition that section 1172.6 resentencing relief is unavailable to an actual killer, the court concluded that Pittman was inapplicable and affirmed the order denying the petition.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant convicted as the actual shooter cannot obtain section 1172.6 resentencing merely by invoking Pittman's implied-malice analysis.
- Pittman concerned an aider and abettor convicted of second-degree implied-malice murder whose youth had not been considered in the malice determination.
- Gipson's jury found that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm, and it was not instructed on felony murder, the natural and probable consequences liability doctrine, or any other theory that could impute malice to him.
- Delgadillo does not mandate independent review for unraised issues in this kind of later appeal, but the court must evaluate specific arguments in a defendant's supplemental filing.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's order denying Gipson's resentencing petition.
Why It Matters
The decision applies the distinction between an actual killer and an aider and abettor whose liability depends on implied malice. Gipson's personal firearm use and the absence of any imputed-malice instructions made Pittman's youth-related reasoning inapplicable to his petition.
The opinion also illustrates the procedure following a no-issue brief in an appeal that is not the first appeal after conviction: independent review is not required, but the court must evaluate any specific arguments raised in a defendant's supplemental filing. The unpublished opinion may not be cited or relied upon except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).