People v. Escareno CA2/4
Filed 3/13/26 P. v. Escareno CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B341196
Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA048471- v. 02 JORGE ESCARENO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden A. Zacky, Judge. Dismissed. Lisa Jensen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant Jorge Escareno appeals from a postjudgment order taking no action on his petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 Escareno filed a supplemental brief after his appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 raising no issues. We conclude that the trial court’s order was not appealable and dismiss the appeal. Section 1172.1 expressly denies defendants the right to file a petition for resentencing under that section and expressly excuses the trial court from acting on any such request by a defendant. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).) Because the trial court chose to disregard Escareno’s request, as it was entitled to do under section 1172.1, there was no order from which to appeal. (People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046–1047; People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 993.) We commend Escareno for the effort he has made to rehabilitate himself, which he references in his supplemental brief. However, because the trial court’s order denying his motion was not appealable, we must dismiss this appeal. Escareno has raised no argument in his supplemental brief overcoming the fact that the appeal must be dismissed.
1 Subsequent unspecified references to statutes are to the Penal Code.
2
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)