People v. Loper, 60 Cal. 4th 1155

Background

Loper pleaded guilty in 2010 and was sentenced in 2011 to six years in prison.
In August 2012 the CDCR Secretary recommended recall of Loper’s sentence under Penal Code §1170(e) (compassionate release) based on terminal/medically incapacitated conditions; CDCR physicians provided differing prognoses about a <6‑month life expectancy.
The superior court considered medical letters and informal courtroom statements from a CDCR physician but denied the recommendation, finding the statutory six‑month prognosis requirement unmet.
Loper (not the Secretary) appealed the denial; the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal as nonappealable.
The California Supreme Court granted review to decide whether a prisoner may appeal a trial court’s denial of a §1170(e) recommendation initiated by prison/parole authorities.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Loper)	Held
Whether a prisoner can appeal a trial court’s denial of a §1170(e) compassionate‑release recommendation made by the Secretary/BPH	Loper has no statutory right to initiate recall; because the prisoner cannot move, denial of the Secretary’s recommendation does not affect the prisoner’s "substantial rights" and is nonappealable	The order denying recall after judgment is an "order affecting substantial rights" under §1237(b); prisoner may appeal even though he did not initiate the motion	The Supreme Court held the order is appealable under §1237(b) because it is an order made after judgment that affects the prisoner’s substantial liberty interests
Whether appealability requires the appellant to have been the moving party in the trial court	Respondent contended appealability should turn on who had statutory authority to move in trial court	Loper argued appealability hinges on whether the order affects his substantial rights, not on who moved below	Court rejected a rule requiring the appellant to be the moving party; appealability is governed by §1237(b)’s plain meaning and precedent recognizing appeals by non‑moving defendants
Whether permitting direct appeal undermines statutory purpose of expedited compassionate release	Respondent argued writ relief is the faster proper route and appeal would frustrate legislative intent for quick resolution	Loper noted appeal can be expedited and direct appeal is presumed adequate; remedy should not be limited to writs	Court held direct appeal is an adequate and authorized remedy and did not bar appeals on expedition grounds
Precedential effect of cases holding appeals improper when movant lacked statutory authority	Respondent relied on cases (e.g., Druschel, Niren) holding appeals improper when defendant lacked authority to bring motion	Loper relied on cases allowing appeals by non‑moving parties where substantial rights were affected (e.g., Herrera, Sword)	Court distinguished those older cases and disapproved them to the extent inconsistent with Carmony; authorized appeal here where Secretary properly initiated recommendation

Key Cases Cited

Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (statutory nature of right to appeal; §1237(b) framework)
People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (defendant may raise on appeal trial court’s failure to exercise discretionary powers even if defendant lacks statutory right to move)
People v. Herrera, 127 Cal.App.3d 590 (prisoner may appeal denial of board‑initiated sentence recall affecting liberty)
People v. Sword, 29 Cal.App.4th 614 (defendant may appeal denial of hospital director’s recommendation for outpatient status)
People v. Connor, 115 Cal.App.4th 669 (defendant may appeal disclosure order affecting substantial privacy interests)
People v. Pritchett, 20 Cal.App.4th 190 (recall action cannot be used to evade appellate deadlines; distinguishes valid vs. invalid postjudgment recalls)
Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (scope of §1170(d) resentencing authority; contextual statutory interpretation)
Martinez v. Board of Parole Hearings, 183 Cal.App.4th 578 (discussion of compassionate‑release purpose and administrative role)