People v. Huynh CA2/4

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Huynh CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B344588 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA081657) v. JONATHAN HUYNH, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Lasecke, Judge. Dismissed.

A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and Jonathan Huynh, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Jonathan Huynh appeals from an order denying his request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 His appellate counsel 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. filed a brief raising no issues and requested we proceed under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Huynh filed a supplemental brief. Because the trial court’s order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND In 2010, a jury convicted Huynh of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon (knife) during the commission of the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Huynh to 26 years to life in state prison.

On January 21, 2025, Huynh filed a request for resentencing under section 1172.1, citing Assembly Bill No. 600 and Senate Bill No. 261. On February 20, 2025, the trial court summarily denied the request.

Huynh timely appealed. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief raising no issues and requesting that we exercise our discretion to independently review the record for error pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pages 231–232. Huynh filed a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION Section 1237 generally governs a defendant’s right to appeal in criminal cases. Under that section, a defendant may appeal from (1) a final judgment of conviction (§ 1237, subd. (a)), and (2) “[f]rom any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party” (§ 1237, subd. (b)).

Under section 1172.1, the “[trial] court may, on its own motion, within days of the date of commitment or 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.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) The court may also act upon the recommendation of various designated correctional or law enforcement authorities. (Ibid.)

The trial court’s order denying Huynh’s request for resentencing under section 1172.1 is not appealable. As the court explained in People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687 (Faustinos), a “defendant is not entitled to file a section 1172.1 petition [or] to receive a ruling if he nevertheless files one. It 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. We lack the authority to rule on the merits of appeals from orders filed in response to a defendant’s attempt to seek resentencing under section 1172.1.” (Faustinos, supra, at p. 696.) Thus, we must dismiss Huynh’s appeal. (See People v. Baltazar (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 334, 342; People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR: COLLINS, J.

MORI, J.