110 Cal.App.5th 991
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Defendant David Roy was convicted in 2006 of robbery and assault with a firearm, with enhancements based on prior strikes and firearm use, and was sentenced to 25 years to life plus enhancements.
- In 2024, Roy petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, as recently amended to allow courts to resentence defendants on their own motion at any time if sentencing laws have changed.
- The trial court dismissed Roy's petition, citing section 1172.1, subdivision (c), which explicitly states defendants are not entitled to petition for relief under this section and that courts are not required to respond to such requests.
- Roy appealed the trial court's dismissal, raising the question of whether such an order is appealable under Penal Code section 1237(b), which permits appeals from post-judgment orders affecting substantial rights.
- The court ordered supplemental briefing on the appealability of the trial court’s order in light of changes to section 1172.1 and relevant case law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is dismissing a defendant-initiated resentencing request under § 1172.1 appealable? | The dismissal is not appealable since defendants are not entitled to file. | The court had jurisdiction and the change in law permits consideration of new motions. | Not appealable; the court is not required to respond, so no substantial rights are affected. |
| Does § 1172.1, as amended, create a new right for defendants to petition? | No; the statute explicitly denies such a right. | Defendants may still "invite" the court’s discretion even if not formally entitled. | Statute's bar on entitlement and response negates any appealable right. |
| Does the trial court have jurisdiction to act on such a petition post-judgment? | Yes, but only on its own motion or appropriate recommendation. | Yes, if sentencing laws have changed since sentencing. | Court had jurisdiction to consider, but not required to act on defendant-initiated request. |
| Would the trial court’s silence or inaction also affect appealability? | No order, no appeal possible. | Any form of decision should be appealable. | Court agrees; no obligation means no appealable rights regardless of court response. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedure for appellate review when counsel finds no arguable issues)
- People v. Loper, 60 Cal.4th 1155 (Cal. 2015) (denial of recall of sentence on Secretary's recommendation is appealable under specific statutory context)
- People v. Chlad, 6 Cal.App.4th 1719 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (denial of a motion court lacks jurisdiction to consider is not appealable)
- People v. Pritchett, 20 Cal.App.4th 190 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993) (no appealable right when defendant has no standing to seek relief)
- People v. Superior Court (Romero), 13 Cal.4th 497 (Cal. 1996) (trial court may strike prior strikes but is not obliged to do so)
- People v. Carmony, 33 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 2004) (scope of review for denials of Romero motions)