Filed 10/8/25 P. v. Lucatero CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084608 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD263891) ALEXIS LUCATERO, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Affirmed.

Alexis Lucatero, in pro. per.; and Joanna McKim, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

A jury convicted Alexis Lucatero of attempted murder (Pen. Code,1 §§ 664, 187) and several other felonies. The jury found Lucatero committed the crimes for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)).

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code. The jury also found Lucatero personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Lucatero was sentenced to a term of 21 years in prison.

Lucatero appealed his conviction, and this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Lucatero (Mar. 28, 2018, D071581).)

In April 2024, Lucatero filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6. The court appointed counsel, received briefing, reviewed the record of conviction, and held a hearing.

The court found there were no jury instructions given on natural and probable consequences or implied malice based on the conduct of another person. The court found Lucatero was the direct perpetrator of the attempted murder offense. Based on the record of conviction, the court found Lucatero was ineligible for relief under section 1172.6. The petition for resentencing was denied.

Lucatero filed a timely notice of appeal.

Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error in the same manner we would do if the case was controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We have determined to exercise our discretion to make an independent review of the record for error. Accordingly, we decline to engage in further analysis of Delgadillo’s potential limitations for cases arising from denial of resentencing petitions under section 1172.6.

We offered Lucatero the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a lengthy, wide-ranging document complaining of multiple constitutional errors. He has not, however demonstrated how those alleged constitutional errors would apply on this record. Although lengthy,

Lucatero’s brief does not identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Delgadillo brief and asks the court to independently review the record for error. We have exercised our discretion and made an independent review of the record. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.

Competent counsel has represented Lucatero on this appeal.

DISPOSITION The order denying Lucatero’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.

RUBIN, J.