People v. Hernandez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Nov 5, 2025 No. D083815Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a successive Penal Code section 1172.6 petition that fails to allege new facts or law is properly construed as a non-appealable motion for reconsideration. Consequently, the appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review the denial of such a petition.

Issues

Whether a successive Penal Code section 1172.6 petition that repeats identical allegations from a prior petition is appealable.
Whether the trial court properly construed the defendant's third petition as a motion for reconsideration.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“because his third section 1172.6 petition did not allege any new facts or law, we conclude the court properly treated it as a request for reconsideration and therefore its order denying the petition is not appealable.”

“Because Hernandez’s third section 1172.6 petition was, in effect, a motion for reconsideration, the instant order denying that petition is not appealable.”

“Because an appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction, the appellate court must consider the question of appealability sua sponte, and dismiss the appeal if the judgment or order is found to be nonappealable.”

Filed 11/5/25 P. v. Hernandez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, FOURH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083815 Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MANUEL HERNANDEZ, (Super. Ct. No. SCD116162) Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Roderick W. Shelton, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Jared G. Coleman, 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, Robin Urbanski, Seth M. Friedman and Juliet W. Park, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Manuel Hernandez appeals a 2024 order summarily denying his third

Penal Code1 section 1172.6 petition for resentencing. The allegations in his third petition were identical to those in his second section 1172.6 petition, which the trial court summarily denied in 2022. In denying his third petition, the trial court implicitly treated it as a request for reconsideration which failed to allege any new facts or law. As we explain below, because his third section 1172.6 petition did not allege any new facts or law, we conclude the court properly treated it as a request for reconsideration and therefore its order denying the petition is not appealable. Lacking jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

In 1996, Hernandez pled guilty to second degree murder and admitted the truth of the related allegation that he personally used a firearm in committing that offense. The trial court sentenced him to a term of 18 years to life. On appeal, we affirmed the judgment. (People v. Hernandez (Aug. 27, 1997, D027691) [nonpub. opn.].)

People v. Hernandez CA4/1

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

BUCHANAN, J.

CASTILLO, J.

AI Brief