People v. Sheard CA2/8, B338675

Shareef Sheard was convicted in 2006 of attempted murder, assault with a firearm, and possession of a firearm by a felon, receiving a lengthy sentence due to enhancements.
In 2024, Sheard filed a motion for recall and resentencing under Penal Code §1172.1, citing rehabilitation, childhood trauma, and alleged racial discrimination during charging.
The trial court declined to resentence him, finding insufficient mitigating evidence, no demonstrated remorse, and no evidence supporting racial discrimination specific to his case.
The court noted Sheard’s motion was not authorized under the statute, as defendants cannot file petitions themselves under §1172.1; only specified entities can do so.
Sheard appealed, arguing the trial court relied on improper facts and misapplied the law, and raised arguments again about rehabilitation and discrimination.
The appellate court considered both the statutory limits and the scope of appealability for such orders.

Issue	Sheard's Argument	People's Argument	Held
Whether an order denying an unauthorized resentencing motion under §1172.1 is appealable	Sheard argued the denial affected his substantial rights and should be appealable	The People did not file a responsive brief; trial court held the motion was unauthorized	Denial of unauthorized petition is not appealable
Whether Sheard’s mitigation evidence warranted resentencing	Sheard cited rehabilitation and mitigating factors	Trial court found evidence duplicative and not persuasive, and no recent training or remorse	Not decided, as appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
Whether racial discrimination in sentencing enhancements constituted grounds for resentencing	Sheard claimed disparate impact as a Black man sentenced with gun enhancements	Trial court held impact on minorities alone does not prove discrimination under current law	Not decided; statute does not provide this avenue for individually filed claims
Whether trial court errors in factual findings justified relief	Sheard alleged factual errors in age and duplication of exhibits	Trial court rejected mitigation documents and focused on legal authority to consider petition	Not reached; appeal dismissed

People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal. 5th 216 (outlines process for handling appeals from denials of postconviction relief where counsel files a no-issue brief)
People v. King, 77 Cal. App. 5th 629 (discusses statutory exceptions to the general rule about trial court jurisdiction to modify sentences)
Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal. 4th 595 (right to appeal is statutory and limited to matters expressly made appealable)
People v. Loper, 60 Cal. 4th 1155 (factors for determining whether a denial affects substantial rights and is appealable)