People v. Casas CA6

Filed 12/8/25 P. v. Casas CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H053204 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS161489A)

v.

PEDRO CASAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Pedro Casas seeks to appeal the trial court’s election not to respond to his request to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.1. We conclude the court’s decision is not appealable and we will therefore dismiss the appeal. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged in 2016 with attempted murder and shooting at an occupied vehicle. He was alleged to have personally used a firearm and committed the offenses for the benefit of a criminal street gang. According to the record, the charges stemmed from an incident in which defendant and another man approached a parked car with a gun and fired shots after one of them scuffled with the driver. Defendant pleaded no contest to assault with a firearm, admitted gang and firearm allegations, and was sentenced to 15 years in prison. Currently serving his sentence, defendant has sought resentencing based on changes in the law. As relevant to this appeal, in January 2025 he asked that his sentence be recalled under Penal Code section 1172.1. (Unspecified statutory references are to the

Penal Code.) In connection with that request, he stated that he did not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety and that post-conviction factors reflected “a de-escalation in criminality.” He also identified various changes to sentencing laws that he asserted would apply if he were to be resentenced. Referencing section 1172.1, subdivision (c), the trial court stated that it “decline[d] to respond” to defendant’s recall request. Defendant filed a notice of appeal reflecting a challenge to that action. This court ordered defendant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed as taken from a nonappealable order. In response to the order to show cause, appointed counsel asserted in a letter brief that the trial court’s response to defendant’s recall request is appealable as a post-judgment order affecting defendant’s substantial rights. After the order to show cause was deferred for consideration with the appeal, appointed counsel filed an opening brief summarizing the case but raising no issues. Consistent with People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf. Defendant responded by filing a three-page handwritten supplemental brief again asserting that changes in the law since his sentence was imposed warrant sentencing relief. II. DISCUSSION “When a defendant, upon conviction for a felony offense, has been committed to the custody of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation … , 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 the sentence and commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced[.]” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) Recall and resentencing “may be initiated by the original sentencing judge, a judge designated by the presiding judge, or any judge with jurisdiction in the case.” (Ibid.) “A defendant is not entitled to file a