People v. Bolanos CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of Riverside County · No. INF1700627
- Trial judge
- Kristi Hester
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- O'Rourke (author), Bermudez
Analysis
The trial court denied Bolanos's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, finding he was not entitled to resentencing and that his custody credits were correctly calculated. The Court of Appeal affirmed the order, conducting an independent review of the record pursuant to People v. Delgadillo and finding no arguable issues for reversal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1“The court denied the petition. The court found Bolanos was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.1 and that the calculation of custody credits appeared to be correct.” | de novo | correct | agree with court The appellate court independently reviewed the record and found no error in the trial court's determination that the petition was properly denied. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Establishes the procedure for appointed appellate counsel in cases where no arguable issues are identified, allowing the court to exercise discretion to conduct an independent review of the record.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Establishes the standard for independent review of the record by appellate counsel in criminal appeals, which the court noted is not directly applicable but whose procedure was requested by counsel.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Requires appointed counsel to file a brief identifying any arguable issues and to request leave to withdraw, ensuring the defendant's right to counsel is protected even when no issues are found.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly applies the Delgadillo framework for independent review when counsel identifies no issues. It properly notes the inapplicability of Wende while still conducting the requested review.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe Riverside County Superior Court denied Juan Carlos Bolanos's 2025 petition under Penal Code section 1172.1 seeking recall of his 16-year sentence and recalculation of custody credits, finding he was not entitled to resentencing and that the credits appeared correct. On appeal, counsel filed a Delgadillo brief, Bolanos filed a supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal exercised its discretion to review the record, found no arguable issues, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of defendant-initiated petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, including request to order CDCR to recalculate custody credits“The court found Bolanos was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.1 and that the calculation of custody credits appeared to be correct.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Section 1172.1 permits recall only on the court's own motion or on recommendation of CDCR, the district attorney, the Attorney General, or similar officials; subdivision (c) states a defendant is not entitled to file a petition and the court need not respond. A defendant-initiated petition therefore stated no basis for relief, and a request that CDCR recalculate credits is properly pursued through administrative remedies and habeas corpus rather than a recall petition. The denial was correct, though the opinion does not articulate this reasoning or a standard of review, and it does not address whether the denial of an unauthorized defendant motion was an appealable order at all. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent-review procedures do not apply to appeals from postjudgment orders, but the Court of Appeal retains discretion to independently review the record and must consider a defendant's supplemental brief.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for independent appellate review of the record when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues on direct appeal.
- relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal frivolous should file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
- missed: People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155 — A trial court's denial of a recall and resentencing request initiated by CDCR under former section 1170, subdivision (d) is an appealable postjudgment order affecting the defendant's substantial rights; the opinion did not address whether denial of a defendant's own unauthorized recall petition is appealable.
- missed: People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719 — Because a defendant has no standing to move for recall of sentence under former section 1170, subdivision (d), an order denying the defendant's own recall motion does not affect substantial rights and is not appealable; the appeal should be dismissed.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly applied Delgadillo by considering the supplemental brief and exercising discretion to review the record, and the result is defensible because section 1172.1 gives a defendant no right to petition for recall. The opinion, however, skips the threshold question whether the denial of a defendant-initiated recall petition is an appealable order under Loper and Chlad, which could have called for dismissal rather than affirmance, and it states no reasoning on the merits of the credits issue.
Opinion
Filed 7/20/26 P. v. Bolanos 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, D087027
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. INF1700627)
v.
JUAN CARLOS BOLANOS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Kristi Hester, Judge. Affirmed.
Juan Carlos Bolanos, in pro. per., and Rachel Varnell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2020, a jury convicted Juan Carlos Bolanos of continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code1 § 288.5 (count 1)) and three counts of lewd acts with a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a) (counts 2, 3, & 4)).
1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code. Bolanos was sentenced to a 16-year term for count 1. The court imposed concurrent low-term sentences for the remaining counts, and stayed under section 654. In 2025, Bolanos filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.1, requesting the court to order the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to recalculate his custody credits. The court denied the petition. The court found Bolanos was not entitled to resentencing under section 1172.1 and that the calculation of custody credits appeared to be correct. Bolanos filed a timely notice of appeal and received a certificate of probable cause. Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues that would warrant reversal on appeal. Counsel recognizes the procedure to be followed in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 is not applicable to cases falling under the scope of Delgadillo. Counsel does note, however, that Delgadillo does grant the Court of Appeal the discretion to conduct an independent review of the record for error. Counsel asks this court to exercise its discretion to review the record for error as we would do in a case controlled by Wende. We advised Bolanos that he could file his own brief on appeal. He has filed a supplemental brief. We have carefully reviewed Bolanos’s brief, but we have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. In his brief, Bolanos includes a number of legal principles such as the separation of powers doctrine as applied to the federal and state constitutions. He includes a variety of materials relating to custody credits without any arguments that would create an arguable issue for reversal on 2 appeal. The materials and principles Bolanos submits on this record do not present any potentially meritorious issues in this case. DISCUSSION As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo and asks the court to independently review the record for error. To assist the court in its review and in compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified a possible issue that was considered in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal: whether the trial court erred in denying Bolanos’s petition to recall the sentence. We have exercised our discretion and have independently reviewed the record. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Competent counsel has represented Bolanos in this appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Bolanos’s petition under section 1172.1 is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, J. WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, Acting P. J.
BERMUDEZ, J.
Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fourth Appellate District, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. 3
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Delgadillo S266305 · 2022-12-19
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12