California Court of Appeal Dec 31, 2025 No. E085899Unpublished
Filed 12/31/25 P. v. Easley CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E085899
v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV18003136)
CHRISTOPHER LADALE EASLEY, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Daniel W.
Detienne, Judge. Dismissed.
Christopher Ladale Easley, in pro. per.; and Laura Vavakin, under appointment by
the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Christopher Ladale Easley submitted a request for recall
of sentence and resentencing pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 600 and Penal Code section
1172.1,1 which the court denied.
On appeal, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We offered defendant the opportunity to file a
personal supplemental brief, which he has done.2 Defendant contends that defense
counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel during his plea and sentencing, and
that the court failed to properly apply the amended provisions of Senate Bill No. 567
when sentencing him. We dismiss the appeal.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By information filed October 3, 2018, the People charged defendant with murder.
(§ 187, subd. (a); count 1.) The People further alleged that during the murder, defendant
had personally and intentionally discharged a handgun causing great bodily injury
(§ 12022.53, subd. (d)), personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.53,
subd. (c)), and personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)).
On December 21, 2021, pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to an
interlineated offense of voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a); count 2) and admitted
that he used a firearm during the offense (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)).
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 “If the defendant . . . files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
2
On January 21, 2022, pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced
defendant to a determinate term of 21 years in prison consisting of the upper term of 11
years on the manslaughter offense and the upper term of 10 years on the personal use
enhancement. The court dismissed the remaining count and enhancements. Defendant
did not appeal.
On February 24, 2025, the court noted that it was “in receipt of Request for Recall
of Sentence and Resentencing pursuant to AB600 and PC1172.1.”3 The court denied the
request “pursuant to PC 1172.1(c)[.] The court does not have jurisdiction to address 1385
and SB567 motions.”
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that defense counsel rendered ineffective assistance of
counsel during his plea and sentencing, and that the court failed to properly apply the
amended provisions of Senate Bill No. 567 when sentencing him. We dismiss the appeal.
“Assembly Bill [No.] 600 amended the resentencing procedure established by
section 1172.1, which pertains to a resentencing commenced upon the court’s own
motion or recommendation by a party such as a correctional authority or district
attorney.” (People v. Dowdy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1, 10.)
3 No such request appears in the record. Appellate counsel requested that the superior court supplement the record to include the request. The court clerk responded that after an extensive review of the case file, they could not locate the request.
3
“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under
this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court
is not required to respond.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).)
Although section 1172.1 does not entitle defendants “to petition the court for
relief, a defendant is not forbidden altogether from raising the issue with a court.”
(People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 998, fn. omitted (Roy).) A defendant-
initiated petition “is best viewed as merely inviting the court to consider whether it
wishes to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1.” (Id. at p. 999.)
“If the trial court is not required to act in response to a defendant’s request, then
[a] defendant has no right to a decision as to whether the trial court will make its own
motion to recall and resentence.” (Roy, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 998.) Thus, because
a trial court has no obligation to act on a defendant’s request, a defendant’s substantial
rights are not affected by an order denying his petition. (Ibid.; accord, People v. Brinson
(2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1045; People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 996
(Hodge); People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 697 (Faustinos), review den.
June 11, 2025, S289909 [“there is no appellate jurisdiction over an order declining to act
on a defendant’s unauthorized section 1172.1 petition, even though a court may initiate a
resentencing on its own motion”].)
Here, the appeal must be dismissed. Defendant was not entitled to file a petition
seeking relief from the court under section 1172.1. Thus, the court was not required to
respond to defendant’s petition; in fact, the court specifically denied defendant’s motion
4
pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (c), reflecting that it was declining to respond.
Therefore, the order denying defendant’s request for resentencing does not affect his
substantial rights and is not appealable. (Roy, supra, 110 Cal.App.5th at p. 998; accord,
Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 996; Faustinos, supra, 109 Cal.App.5th at p. 697.)
Defendant forfeited his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea
and sentencing by failing to file a motion to withdraw the plea and an appeal from the
judgment. (People v. Turner (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1409, 1412-1413; People v. Johnson
(2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 678; People v. Senior (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 531, 535, 538.)
With respect to defendant’s contention that the court was required to impose the
midterms when sentencing him, “Senate Bill No. 567 amended section 1170, former
subdivision (b) by making the middle term the presumptive sentence for a term of
imprisonment unless certain circumstances exist. [Citations.]” (People v. Flores (2022)
73 Cal.App.5th 1032, 1038 [fn. omitted].) “The court may impose a sentence exceeding
the middle term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that
justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts
underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant . . . .” (§ 1170,
subd. (b)(2).)
There is a split of authority as to whether the midterm presumption of amended
section 1170 applies to a negotiated plea agreement with a stipulated sentence. (People v.
S277314 [defendant not entitled to remand where upper term was part of defendant’s
negotiated sentence]; People v. Sallee (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 330, 333-334, review
granted Apr. 26, 2023, S278690 [same].)
Regardless, the changes to section 1170 apply retroactively only to nonfinal cases.
(People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 749.) Defendant’s judgment has been long since
final. Thus, he is not entitled to resentencing.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
FIELDS J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because an order denying a defendant's unauthorized petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 is not appealable, and the defendant's claims regarding his final judgment were forfeited or meritless.
Issues
Whether an order denying a defendant's request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 is appealable.
Whether the defendant is entitled to relief for ineffective assistance of counsel or sentencing errors regarding a final judgment.
Disposition. Dismissed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the order denying defendant’s request for resentencing does not affect his substantial rights and is not appealable.”
“Defendant forfeited his claims of ineffective assistance of counsel during the plea and sentencing by failing to file a motion to withdraw the plea and an appeal from the judgment.”