Summary
The California Court of Appeal held that an order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 is not appealable because it does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights. The court dismissed Carlos Faustinos’s appeal and rejected the argument that the 2024 amendment permitting courts to initiate resentencing on their own motion changed that result. An order filed April 3, 2025 modified the March 13, 2025 opinion without changing the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an order declining to act on a defendant's unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 is appealable.
- Whether the 2024 amendment permitting a trial court in certain circumstances to recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion makes an order declining to act on the defendant's section 1172.1 petition appealable.
- Whether an asserted trial-court mistake concerning its authority or discretion to initiate resentencing creates appellate jurisdiction over an otherwise nonappealable order.
Holdings
- An order declining to act on a defendant's unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 is not appealable because the defendant has no right to file the petition, obtain a ruling, or obtain resentencing, and the order therefore does not affect the defendant's substantial rights under Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b).
- The 2024 amendment allowing a trial court to recall and resentence on its own motion when applicable sentencing laws have changed does not make an order declining to act on a defendant's unauthorized section 1172.1 petition appealable.
- A trial court's allegedly mistaken explanation for declining to act on an unauthorized section 1172.1 petition does not convert the nonappealable order into an appealable one.
Key quotations
“Under that section, a defendant is not entitled to seek relief, and a court need not respond to the request. In this situation, the trial court’s order declining to act on the petition is not an appealable order.” (2)
“We conclude that there is no appellate jurisdiction over an order declining to act on a defendant’s unauthorized section 1172.1 petition, even though a court may initiate a resentencing on its own motion.” (9)
“appealability depends upon the nature of the decision made, not the court’s justification for its ruling.” (11)
Factual background
In 2019, Faustinos pleaded guilty to forcible rape under Penal Code section 261, subdivision (a)(2). The trial court imposed a 16-year sentence consisting of eight years for the rape, doubled because of a prior strike. In 2023, Faustinos sought resentencing under section 1172.1, citing recent ameliorative sentencing laws but not explaining how those laws applied to his case. The superior court took no action and stated that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion.
Procedural history
Faustinos pleaded guilty to forcible rape in 2019 and received a 16-year sentence under a plea agreement. In 2023, he filed a section 1172.1 resentencing request, and the superior court took no action, stating that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion. The Court of Appeal dismissed the ensuing appeal because the order was not appealable.