People v. Padilla CA2/1

Filed 6/25/25 P. v. Padilla CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B337763

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA360224) v.

ROBERT PADILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Sam Ohta, Judge. Dismissed. Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________

Defendant Robert Padilla appeals from an order denying his request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 We appointed counsel for Padilla, who filed a brief identifying no issues on appeal and requesting that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.2 Padilla filed a supplemental brief in which he argues that the trial court should have exercised its jurisdiction to resentence him. He also identifies certain mitigating facts that the court should consider in resentencing.3 Because the order which Padilla seeks to appeal is not appealable, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY In March 2012, a jury convicted Padilla of four counts of extortion (§ 520) and found true the allegation that Padilla committed each extortion offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Padilla to a total of 33 years to life in state prison.

1 Subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 Counsel sent a copy of the brief and the transcripts on appeal to Padilla and informed him that he has the right to file a supplemental brief and, if he did not file a brief, the court may dismiss the appeal. We are satisfied that counsel has complied with her obligations under Delgadillo. 3 Padilla argues that racial bias in his original prosecution is one of the mitigating factors that the superior court should have considered and cites the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (RJA; Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 1). It does not appear that Padilla raised the RJA as part of his resentencing request before the trial court. Regardless, defendants like Padilla who are in custody and whose judgments are final may only bring an RJA claim via a writ of habeas corpus. (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 1000.)