California Court of Appeal Jul 31, 2024 No. E083477Unpublished
Filed 7/31/24 P. v. Ricks CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083477
v. (Super. Ct. No. FSB19001891)
BRYAN SCOTT RICKS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Gregory S. Tavill,
Judge. Dismissed.
Matthew A. Lopas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Bryan Scott Ricks appeals the trial court’s postjudgment
order denying his request for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section
1
1 1172.1 and Assembly Bill No. 600. Appointed counsel has filed a brief under the
authority of People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), requesting this
court to conduct an independent review of the record. In addition, defendant has had an
1170.03 to section 1172.1, but made no substantive changes.” (People v. Salgado (2022)
82 Cal.App.5th 376, 378, fn. 2.)
Once a criminal judgment becomes final, courts no longer have jurisdiction to
vacate or modify a sentence absent an exception to the jurisdictional bar. (People v.
4
Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381; see People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629,
634.) There are limited exceptions to this general rule. For instance, the trial court
retains jurisdiction to resentence a defendant where “specific statutory avenues” authorize
defendants to seek resentencing. (People v. King, supra, at p. 637.) However, as
explained below, section 1172.1 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on
his or her own motion or petition. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); People v. Braggs, supra, 85
Cal.App.5th at p. 818.)
Under section 1172.1, a “court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the
date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of
original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, at
any time upon the recommendation of the secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings in
the case of a defendant incarcerated in state prison, the county correctional administrator
in the case of a defendant incarcerated in county jail, the district attorney of the county in
which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if the Department of Justice
originally prosecuted the case, recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered
and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been
sentenced . . . .” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) Thus, only a court, the Secretary of the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Board of Parole Hearings, a county
correctional administrator, a district attorney, or the Attorney General may recommend or
otherwise seek resentencing under section 1172.1. The statute does not authorize the
defendant themselves to recommend or seek resentencing.
5
Because of this, courts considering former section 1170, subdivision (d)(1), which
used to contain the resentencing provisions now contained in section 1172.1, have held
that it did not permit the inmate to move for recall and resentencing. “Section 1170
subdivision (d) does not confer standing on a defendant to initiate a motion to recall a
sentence.” (People v. Pritchett (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 190, 193.) “Consequently, the
courts have uniformly held that an order denying a defendant’s request to resentence
pursuant to section 1170 subdivision (d) is not appealable as an order affecting the
substantial rights of the party . . . because the defendant has no right to request such an
order in the first instance.” (Id. at p. 194, italics omitted.)
Hence, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify defendant’s sentence on
his own motion. (See § 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719,
1724-1726.) It follows that we lack the authority to render a decision on the merits of
appeals from a defendant’s attempt to seek resentencing under section 1172.1. (People v.
Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326.) Since the court lacked jurisdiction when it
denied defendant’s petition, denial of the petition could not have affected his substantial
rights. (People v. Chlad, supra, at pp. 1725-1726; People v. Hodges (2023) 92
Cal.App.5th 186, 190.) Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s petition for
resentencing is not an appealable order, and the appeal must be dismissed. (People v.
Chlad, supra, at p. 1725; see People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)
6
IV.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
CODRINGTON J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant lacks standing to initiate a motion for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, rendering an order denying such a request non-appealable. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
Does Penal Code section 1172.1 authorize a defendant to file a motion for recall and resentencing?
Is an order denying a defendant's unauthorized request for resentencing under section 1172.1 an appealable order?
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The statute does not authorize the defendant themselves to recommend or seek resentencing.”
“Section 1170 subdivision (d) does not confer standing on a defendant to initiate a motion to recall a sentence.”
“Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is not an appealable order, and the appeal must be dismissed.”