People v. Austin CA2/6

Filed 4/21/25 P. v. Austin CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B337910 (Super. Ct. No. 1200367) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

v.

JEREMY KINGSLEY AUSTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jeremy Kingsley Austin appeals an order denying his request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 We appointed counsel to represent Austin on this appeal. His counsel filed an opening brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, claiming that he was unable to find any arguable issues to brief. Austin filed a supplemental brief. We conclude, among other things, that the trial court did not err by denying his request for resentencing. We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS In 2005, Austin was convicted of four counts of home invasion robbery (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)), one count of criminal threats (§ 422), and one count of residential burglary (§ 459). The jury found he personally used a firearm in committing these offenses (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subd. (b)) and was out on bail at the time he committed these offenses (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 35 years in prison. In 2024, Austin filed a “Motion for Invitation” for resentencing under section 1172.1. The People filed an opposition claiming Austin lacked standing under section 1172.1. They also claimed that he did not fall within the positive resentencing factors of that section because: 1) he “had numerous disciplinary rule violations” while in prison; and 2) he had a youthful offender parole suitability hearing in 2024, he did not attend the hearing, and the parole board found he was “an unreasonable risk to public safety and denied parole for 5 years.” Austin challenged these claims. He presented certificates of completion of rehabilitation programs. He presented witnesses who claimed he had reformed and was no longer the type of person he was two decades earlier. The credibility and weight of that evidence were decided exclusively by the trial court. (People v. Ochoa (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1199, 1206.) After a hearing, the trial court denied his request for resentencing finding it was premature and incomplete.