109 Cal.App.5th 687
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Carlos Faustinos pled guilty in 2019 to forcible rape and was sentenced to 16 years pursuant to a plea agreement (8 years, doubled for a prior strike).
- In 2023, Faustinos filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, citing recent sentencing reforms but not applying them to his case.
- The trial court declined to act on the petition, stating it lacked jurisdiction under section 1172.1 because a defendant is not entitled to petition for resentencing under that statute.
- Faustinos appealed the trial court’s order.
- The Court of Appeal examined whether it had appellate jurisdiction over orders declining to act on unauthorized section 1172.1 petitions in light of recent legislative changes.
- The appeal was dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is an order declining to act on a defendant’s section 1172.1 petition appealable? | Such orders are not appealable since defendants have no statutory right to petition under section 1172.1. | The trial court erred by failing to consider and act on his request for resentencing. | No appellate jurisdiction; order is not appealable. |
| Did the 2024 amendment to section 1172.1 change the appealability of these orders? | The amendment does not create an appeal right for defendants' own motions; trial courts can act sua sponte only. | The amendment gives the court discretion to resentence, making orders appealable. | The amendment does not affect non-appealability of such orders. |
| Can a court’s phrasing or mistaken view of its discretion make the order appealable? | The substance, not the rationale, determines appealability. | A mistaken belief about jurisdiction could affect appeal rights. | No; the nature of the claim controls, not the court's justification. |
| Is habeas corpus the correct remedy for an error by the trial court regarding its own motion jurisdiction? | Yes; habeas is available when trial courts wrongly state they lack discretionary jurisdiction. | No alternative remedy discussed. | Yes; habeas, not appeal, is the proper remedy. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mazurette, 24 Cal.4th 789 (Cal. 2001) (right to appeal is statutory)
- People v. Loper, 60 Cal.4th 1155 (Cal. 2015) (appealable orders must be validly issued; lack of jurisdiction makes them non-appealable)
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Cal. 2014) (nature of the claim, not its merit, determines if substantial rights are affected)
- People v. King, 77 Cal.App.5th 629 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (denial of relief where court has no jurisdiction is not appealable)
- People v. Frazier, 55 Cal.App.5th 858 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (background on resentencing discretion)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991) (trial court's recall of sentence on own motion within 120 days)
- People v. Picklesimer, 48 Cal.4th 330 (Cal. 2010) (remedy for non-appealable postjudgment order is habeas, not appeal)
- People v. Tenorio, 3 Cal.3d 89 (Cal. 1970) (habeas available when trial court misunderstands its own discretion)
- People v. Chlad, 6 Cal.App.4th 1719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (no appeal from denial of unauthorized resentencing motion)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (scope of appellate review on direct appeal of exercise of discretion)