People v. Reno CA2/8

Filed 12/3/25 P. v. Reno CA2/8 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE, B343770

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA062610-01) v.

RALPH RENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Kathleen Blanchard, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_______________________

Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we review an order denying Ralph Reno’s motion for resentencing brought under Penal Code1 section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1). Because we find the order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND On October 1, 2014, a jury found appellant guilty of two counts of robbery in violation of section 211 and two counts of false imprisonment by violence in violation of section 236. The jury also found true enhancements for personal use of a weapon (a pellet gun) under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). Reno waived jury trial on allegations that he had sustained three prior convictions of a serious or violent felony which were also strike convictions under the Three Strikes Law. On May 1, 2015, he admitted all three prior convictions. That same day, the court struck two of the prior felony/strike convictions and imposed a total sentence of 22 years four months in state prison. On November 18, 2024, Reno filed a request for recall of sentence and resentencing under Assembly Bill No. 600 and Penal Code section 1172.1. On December 6, 2024, the trial court denied the request. In doing so, the trial court held: “AB 600 amended Penal Code section 1172.1, in relevant part, to allow: ‘the court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or 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 a sentence. Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (c), specifically reads: ‘A defendant is