People v. Guzman CA4/1

Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Guzman CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084040

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. RIF110891) v. ORDER MODIFYING OPINION SAMUEL SAMSON GUZMAN, AND DENYING REHEARING

Defendant and Appellant. NO CHANGE IN THE JUDGMENT

THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed on August 14, 2025, be modified as follows: 1. The second full paragraph on page 3 is modified to read as follows: Guzman asserts the trial court’s order may be appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b), which provides that a defendant may appeal from any postjudgment order affecting the substantial rights of the party. Should we determine that the order is not appealable, Guzman urges us to exercise our discretion to treat the appeal as a petition for writ of mandate.

2. The third paragraph beginning on page 3 and concluding on page 4, is hereby replaced with the following paragraph. Footnote 4 is added at the end of the replacement paragraph: As our colleagues in Division Two explained, because “[a] defendant is not entitled to file a section 1172.1 petition nor to receive a ruling if he nevertheless files one[,] . . . [i]t follows that an appeal from an order acting on his petition (whether couched as a denial, dismissal, or any other statement that the court is not acting) does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 696.) We agree with this rationale and a growing body of caselaw reaching the same conclusion. (See, e.g., People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046–1047; People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 1001; People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999.) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s order denying Guzman’s request for relief did not affect his substantial rights and was not appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b).1