People v. Lopez CA1/3

Filed 7/25/25 P. v. Lopez CA1/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171790 v. DAVID BUSIO LOPEZ, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR4654761) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2007, defendant David Busio Lopez was convicted by a jury of inflicting corporal injury on a current or former spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a)2), false imprisonment (§ 236), and attempting to prevent or dissuade a person from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court found true allegations that defendant had two prior serious felony convictions and five prior “strike” convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12). The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 30 years to life. This court affirmed the

1 We resolve this case by a memorandum opinion pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

judgment in an unpublished opinion issued in 2009. (People v. Lopez (Dec. 29, 2009, A121255) [nonpub. opn.].) In August 2024, defendant sent the trial court a form “request for recall of sentence and resentencing” pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 600 and section 1172.1. Defendant asserted he was eligible for resentencing because various laws that applied at the time of his sentencing had changed. Among other things, he indicated he believed imposition of lower terms pursuant to amended section 1170, subdivision (b) would be in the interests of justice. The trial court responded by letter signed by the court clerk, which stated in full: “The Court is in receipt of your Request for Recall of Sentence and Resentencing pursuant to Assembly Bill [No.] 600 and . . . [section] 1172.1. Pursuant to [section] 1172.1(c), the court takes no action on your request.” Defendant filed this appeal. Initially, he argues this affirmative denial of his petition is an appealable order affecting his substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) We disagree. Section 1172.1 provides for recall and resentencing of felony defendants committed to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Effective January 1, 2024, section 1172.1 was amended to provide that “the court may, on its own motion, . . . at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, . . . recall the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced, whether or not the defendant is still in custody, and provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence. Recall and resentencing under this section may be initiated by the original sentencing judge, a judge designated by the presiding judge, or any judge with jurisdiction in the case.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1), as amended by Stats. 2023,