People v. Mason CA4/3

Filed 8/12/25 P. v. Mason CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063869

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15NF0265)

TYLER DANIEL MASON, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Heather B. Arambarri and Steve Oetting, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Tyler Daniel Mason appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition for resentencing. On appeal, Mason argues the trial court failed to exercise its informed discretion for whether to recall and resentence him under Penal Code section 1172.1 (all further statutory references are to this code). We conclude this is not an appealable order. Thus, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2018, Mason pleaded guilty to one count of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a)). He also admitted two enhancements: (1) a gang enhancement under section 186.22, subdivision (b)(1); and (2) a gun enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (b). Mason was sentenced to a total term of 12 years. In January 2024, Mason filed a petition that sought appointment of counsel, resentencing, and “‘further proceedings’ to the trier of fact on the question of the truth of the ‘criminal street gang enhancement.’” The petition purported to be based on changes to section 186.22 from Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) and relied on section 1109 and Mendoza v. Superior Court (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 42. The petition did not argue the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him pursuant to section 1172.1. The trial court denied the petition by minute order, which indicated: “The [p]etitioner contends changes to [section] 186.22 by Assembly Bill No. 333 . . . afford retroactive ameliorative benefits to his sentence pursuant to his plea and conviction. The amendments to [section] 186.22 apply retroactively to cases in which the judgments of conviction ‘have not become final prior to the effective date of [Assembly Bill No.] 333.’ [Citation.] ‘When a statute is amended to reduce the punishment for a criminal act, it is