Error and/or relief
This is another case where no relief was granted, but it contains important information on how an otherwise nonappealable order might become appealable.
The defendant filed a motion for resentencing under section 1172.1. While a defendant may invite the court under that section to resentence him, he has no right to make a motion under that section. (It can be triggered by the custodial officials or the prosecutors or on the court’s own motion, however.)
Had the court simply declined to respond to the defendant’s “motion,” or simply denied it outright, the defendant would have no right to appeal. The court, however, considered the motion and denied it on its merits. This created a substantial right for the defendant and permitted appellate review. We conclude the trial court evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits, thus affecting defendant’s substantial rights, and thus the denial is an appealable order.
First Holding:
The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.
Authority:
People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159
Second Holding:
Section 1172.1(a)(1), effective January 1, 2024, provides that the trial court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody, and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.
Section 1172.1(c) expressly states, however, that a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond. Thus, a defendant who chooses to file an unauthorized request for resentencing has no right to a ruling.
Authority:
PEN 1172.1
People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998,
Third Holding:
The second sentence in section 1172.1(c) means that a defendant does not have a substantial right at stake when they request recall and resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1045
People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998-999
People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 696
Fourth Holding:
Where the trial court undertakes to make a resentencing decision on the merits after a defendant has filed a petition pursuant to section 1172.1, the defendant is entitled to an appeal. Here, the trial court effectively evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits. After defendant filed his petition, the trial court set a status conference and a briefing schedule.
When the People asked the trial court whether it would consider recalling defendant’s sentence, the trial court directed the People to address the merits. Additionally, the trial court invited the victims to be heard at a hearing, it considered the parties’ arguments, and it considered whether resentencing defendant would be in the interest of justice. In short, the trial court evaluated and denied defendant’s petition on the merits, thus affecting his substantial rights.
Authority:
People v. Craig (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1165, 1172-1173
People v. Olea (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 889, 902
Fifth Holding:
Defendant claims the enactment of Evidence Code section 352.2 constitutes such a change in sentencing laws. However, he offers no authority or reasoned argument to support his claim. As a result, we may deem the claim forfeited.
Authority:
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B)
People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793
Sixth Holding:
Add holding blurb here
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE