People v. Jenkins CA5, F088020

Alonzo Jenkins was convicted in 1998 of attempted murder, with enhancements for prior strikes, use of a deadly weapon, and a prior serious felony conviction, resulting in a 32-years-to-life sentence.
In January 2024, Jenkins requested the court recall and resentence him under Penal Code section 1172.1 as amended by Assembly Bill 600 and also petitioned under section 1172.75 to strike his prior serious felony enhancement.
The trial court denied both requests, stating Jenkins was not authorized to seek recall and resentencing under section 1172.1, and the statutory change in section 1172.75 did not apply to his enhancement under section 667(a)(1).
Jenkins appealed, arguing the trial court misunderstood its discretion to recall and resentence and that denial of his request affected his substantial rights.
The State contended the denial did not affect Jenkins’s substantial rights and the order was thus not appealable.
The Court of Appeal concluded the order was not appealable and dismissed the appeal, noting defendants are not entitled to seek relief under section 1172.1, and denial of such a request does not affect substantial rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the trial court's denial of a defendant’s invitation to recall and resentence an appealable order under section 1172.1?	The order does not affect Jenkins’s substantial rights; not appealable.	The court misunderstood its discretion, affecting his rights and making the order appealable.	Not appealable; defendant not entitled to the relief.
Did the trial court misunderstand its discretion to recall and resentence under section 1172.1 as amended by AB 600?	Presume trial court understood and properly applied the law.	The record suggests the court misunderstood its authority.	Presume court knew the law; no error shown.
Do statutory changes under section 1172.75 permit striking a five-year enhancement under section 667(a)(1)?	Changes only apply to enhancements under 667.5(b), not 667(a)(1).	Jenkins is eligible to have his enhancement struck under 1172.75 and SB 1393.	Law change does not apply to 667(a)(1) enhancements.
Is a defendant authorized to file a petition under section 1172.1?	No, statute expressly forbids defendant-initiated petitions.	Jenkins may invite the court to exercise its discretion.	Defendants cannot initiate; court not obligated to respond.

People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (Cal. 1992) (explains loss of jurisdiction to resentence after execution of sentence begins)
Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (Cal. 1991) (court loses post-judgment jurisdiction absent statute)
People v. Loper, 60 Cal.4th 1155 (Cal. 2015) (discusses appealability of postjudgment orders)
People v. Stowell, 31 Cal.4th 1107 (Cal. 2003) (courts are presumed to know and apply the law)