People v. Markhasev CA2/4

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Markhasev CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B344844

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA109470 )

v.

MICHAEL MARKHASEV,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge. Dismissed. Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Michael Markhasev appeals from a postjudgment order declining to act on his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1.1 His appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) raising no issues. Markhasev filed a supplemental brief requesting that we “close this appeal.” We conclude the trial court’s order was not appealable and dismiss the appeal. In 1998, a jury found Markhasev guilty of murdering Ennis Cosby during a robbery attempt. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd. (a)(17), 211, 664, subd. (a).) The jury also found true allegations that Markhasev personally used a firearm in connection with both the murder and attempted robbery. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).) The court sentenced Markhasev to life without the possibility of parole plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. In November 2024, through counsel, Markhasev filed an “invitation to recall and resentence petitioner” pursuant to section 1172.1. He supported the petition with citations to his rehabilitative and educational achievements while incarcerated, as well as laudatory chronos and letters of support. Markhasev subsequently supplemented the petition with additional exhibits, including documents related to his educational achievements and his handwritten “revised and updated reentry plans.” On March 7, 2025, Markhasev’s counsel and the prosecution appeared in court to discuss the petition. At the outset of the discussion, the court observed that it was not required to respond to or take any action on the petition. After hearing arguments from counsel, the court stated that it would not respond to the petition. The court subsequently issued a