People v. Guzman CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084040 · 2025-08-14 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from an order
Trial court: Superior Court of Riverside County · No. RIF110891
Trial judge: Thomas M. Kelly
Outcome: dismissed — Dismissed.
Area: criminal
Panel: Joan K. Irion (author), O'Rourke, Michele M. Castillo

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:43Z · confidence high

The trial court denied Guzman's pro per request to recall his sentence under Penal Code section 1172.1. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the order was not appealable because the statute does not grant defendants the right to file such petitions, meaning the denial did not affect his substantial rights.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's request to recall sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1 “we conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.”	unclear	not reached	agree with court The appellate court did not review the merits of the trial court's denial because it determined the order was not appealable. The court held that because Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (c) states a defendant is not entitled to file a petition for relief, a ruling on such a petition does not affect the defendant's substantial rights under Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without addressing whether the trial court abused its discretion.

Authorities

relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying arguable issues when they believe an appeal is frivolous.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires appellate courts to independently review the record for reversible error when appointed counsel files a Wende/Anders brief.
relied: People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687 — Holds that an appeal from an order acting on a defendant's section 1172.1 petition does not affect the defendant's substantial rights because the defendant is not entitled to file such a petition.
relied: People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040 — Supports the conclusion that orders denying section 1172.1 petitions are not appealable.
relied: People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991 — Supports the conclusion that orders denying section 1172.1 petitions are not appealable.
relied: People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985 — Supports the conclusion that orders denying section 1172.1 petitions are not appealable.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the plain language of Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (c), which explicitly states that a defendant is not entitled to file a petition for relief. By relying on a consistent line of recent California appellate authority (Faustinos, Brinson, Roy, Hodge), the court logically concludes that a ruling on a non-entitled petition does not affect substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b), rendering the order unappealable.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:18Z · confidence low

The Riverside County Superior Court summarily denied Guzman's pro. per. request to recall and resentence him under Penal Code section 1172.1, as amended by Assembly Bill 600. On appeal, after appointed counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief and Guzman filed no supplemental brief, the Court of Appeal held the order was not appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b), because a defendant has no right to file a section 1172.1 petition or to obtain a ruling on one, and dismissed the appeal.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of defendant's own request to recall sentence and resentence under Penal Code section 1172.1 “Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s order denying Guzman’s request for relief did not affect his substantial rights and was not appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b).”	de novo	not reached	agree with court The court did not reach the merits of the denial (counsel's suggested abuse-of-discretion issue) because it resolved the threshold question of appealability, a legal question decided independently. Section 1172.1, subdivision (c), states a defendant 'is not entitled to file a petition' and the court 'is not required to respond,' so an order declining to act on such a filing cannot affect substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b). The opinion follows a consistent line of published Court of Appeal decisions (Faustinos, Brinson, Roy, Hodge) applying exactly this reasoning, and the statutory text supports it. The result is also consistent with the Supreme Court's approach in People v. Loper, which grounded appealability of recall orders on a recommendation from an authorized official, something absent here.

Authorities

relied: People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687 — Because a defendant is not entitled to file a section 1172.1 petition or receive a ruling on it, an order acting on such a petition does not affect substantial rights and is not appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b).
relied: People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040 — Order denying a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 request is not appealable.
relied: People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991 — Order denying a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 request is not appealable.
relied: People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985 — Order denying a defendant-initiated section 1172.1 request is not appealable.
relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel identifies no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
missed: People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155 — An order denying recall and resentencing under former section 1170(d) made on the recommendation of an authorized official is appealable as affecting substantial rights; the decision rests on the recommendation having been made and does not extend to a defendant's own unauthorized motion. It is the Supreme Court's framework for appealability of recall orders and supports, rather than undermines, the result here.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postconviction orders; the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may dismiss the appeal as abandoned if none is filed, though it retains discretion to review the record. The court followed this procedure but did not cite it.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly resolves the only dispositive question—appealability under section 1237, subdivision (b)—using the plain text of section 1172.1, subdivision (c), and a consistent body of published appellate authority. It does not cite the Supreme Court's controlling decisions on appealability of recall orders (Loper) or on Wende procedure in postconviction appeals (Delgadillo), though both are consistent with the result reached.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 8/14/25 P. v. Guzman CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084040

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF110891)

SAMUEL SAMSON GUZMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Thomas M. Kelly, Judge. Dismissed. Janice R. Mazur, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Samuel Samson Guzman appeals from the trial court’s order denying his request to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.1. His appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), which raised no arguable issues but asked us to independently review the 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. record for reversible error. We offered Guzman the opportunity to file his own supplemental brief on appeal, but he has not responded. After reviewing the record and the briefing submitted by counsel, we conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND2 A jury convicted Guzman of second degree murder (§§ 187 and 189, subd. (b)) and found true the allegation that he personally discharged a firearm causing death. (§§ 12022.53, subd. (d) and 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) In December 2005, the court sentenced him to an indeterminate prison term of 40 years to life, consisting of 15 years to life for the murder and 25 years to life for use of the firearm. In March 2024, Guzman, acting in pro. per., filed a form “(Addendum) Request for Recall of Sentence and Resentencing Pursuant to Assembly Bill 600 and Penal Code Section 1172.1” seeking relief following statutory changes to several sentencing laws. Under the section of the form entitled “Reasons to Grant Relief,” Guzman explained that he had earned an associate’s degree, maintained a sober lifestyle, gained insight into his crime, and learned a wide array of tools and skills. He also provided evidence that he will receive disability compensation from the Department of Veterans Affairs for posttraumatic stress disorder upon release. In response to his filing, the court issued a minute order stating it had read and considered his ex-parte correspondence and was denying his request. DISCUSSION Under section 1172.1, the “[trial] court may, on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable 2 Because the facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not at issue in this appeal, we omit any recitation of them. 2 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).3) The court may also act upon the recommendation of certain government officials. (Ibid.) But, by the statute’s plain terms, the defendant “is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section.” (Id., subd. (c).) If a defendant does so, “the court is not required to respond.” (Ibid.) To assist this court in its independent review under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, Guzman’s appointed counsel identified the following issue: “Did [the] trial court abuse its discretion in summarily denying the defendant’s request to recall his sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1?” We do not reach this issue because we conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable. Guzman asserts the trial court’s order is appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b), which provides that a defendant may appeal from any postjudgment order affecting the substantial rights of the party. However, as our colleagues in Division Two explained, because “[a] defendant is not entitled to file a section 1172.1 petition nor to receive a ruling if he nevertheless files one[,] . . . [i]t follows that an appeal from an order acting on his petition (whether couched as a denial, dismissal, or any other statement that the court is not acting) does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights.” (People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 696.) We agree 3 Assembly Bill No. 600 amended section 1172.1 to expand the trial court’s authority to recall and resentence on its own motion. (Stats. 2023, ch. 446, § 2.)

3 with this rationale and a growing body of caselaw reaching the same conclusion. (See, e.g., People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046– 1047; People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 1001; People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999.) Accordingly, we conclude the trial court’s order denying Guzman’s request for relief did not affect his substantial rights and was not appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b). DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

IRION, J.

WE CONCUR:

O'ROURKE, Acting P. J.

CASTILLO, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12