People v. Woods CA4/2

Filed 5/19/26 P. v. Woods CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E087067 v. (Super.Ct.No. OCR10193) MICHAEL EARL WOODS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael S.

Dauber, Judge. Dismissed.

Michael Woods in pro. per. and Travis Daily, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Michael Earl Woods appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), and defendant filed a supplemental brief.

On the court’s own motion, we order the appeal DISMISSED because it does not affect defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant’s motion for resentencing. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c) [“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section.”].) Since the court lacked jurisdiction when it denied the resentencing motion, denial of the motion could not have affected defendant’s substantial rights. (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999 (Hodge) [“a trial court’s order declining to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1 to recall a defendant’s sentence on its own motion after receiving the defendant’s unauthorized request for such relief does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b)”]; see also, People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726 (Chlad).) Accordingly, the order denying defendant's motion for resentencing is not an appealable order, and the appeal must be dismissed. (Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 991; Chlad, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1725; see also, People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur: MILLER Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.