People v. Brasley CA3

Filed 1/22/26 P. v. Brasley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102563

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F00775)

v.

BENJAMIN BRASLEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Benjamin Brasley appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment order dismissing his motion pursuant to what is now Penal Code1 section 1172.1. He argues the court erred in dismissing the motion and that we should remand for the court to reconsider it. We conclude the order is not an appealable order and so dismiss the appeal.

1 Undesignated section references are to the Penal Code. Defendant filed his motion pursuant to section 1170.03, but at the time, section 1170.03 had already been renumbered to section 1172.1 by Assembly Bill No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), effective June 30, 2022 (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9). This opinion therefore refers to section 1172.1.

1

BACKGROUND In 2016, defendant pled no contest to second-degree robbery (§ 211) and admitted he was armed with a firearm (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)), had two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had one prior strike conviction. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years for the robbery (the upper term, doubled due to the prior strike), one year for the firearm enhancement, and 10 years for the two prior serious felony enhancements. In 2024, defendant moved to dismiss and vacate his sentence pursuant to section 1172.1. The trial court dismissed defendant’s motion, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion, as defendant’s case had been final since October 2016. Defendant timely appealed. The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Defendant argues the trial court erred in concluding it lacked jurisdiction to consider his section 1172.1 motion. We conclude the court’s order is not appealable and thus dismiss the appeal. “The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159.) Section 1237, subdivision (b), authorizes criminal defendants to appeal “[f]rom any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” Section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1), provides that the trial court “may, on its own motion, . . . 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, whether or not the defendant