Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Antonio Montes Linares was convicted by a jury of first degree murder with two firearm enhancements and sentenced to 50 years to life. The sentence comprised 25 years to life for murder and a consecutive 25-year-to-life firearm term; another firearm enhancement was stayed. Summarizing a prior opinion for background, the court said Linares shot Jose Sanchez when Linares was 19. Linares and Timothy Nunez wrapped Sanchez's body; Linares then transported it to a remote area and tried to burn it.
In 2025, Linares filed a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, asking the trial court to reduce his murder conviction to voluntary manslaughter with an 11-year sentence and reduce the firearm enhancement to 10 years, for an aggregate term of 21 years. The trial court declined to "act on … defendant's unauthorized petition, pursuant to … section 1172.1, sub[division] (c)," and Linares appealed.
Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts and asking the Court of Appeal to review the record for arguable issues under People v. Wende and People v. Delgadillo. Linares then filed a supplemental brief contending that the prosecution's gang expert presented the jury with a false narrative about his motive for killing Sanchez. The court therefore had to decide both the applicable review procedure and whether the challenged order could support an appeal.
The Court’s Holding
The court explained that Wende requires review of the entire record when appointed counsel raises no specific issues on a first appeal as of right, a procedure grounded in the constitutional right to counsel. Delgadillo held that those procedures do not apply to a trial court's order denying postconviction relief under section 1172.6, and that a supplemental brief requires the appellate court to evaluate the specific arguments presented and issue a written opinion, not to search the entire record for unraised issues. The panel found those principles relevant because this was not Linares's first appeal as of right.
Before reaching the supplemental claim, the court addressed appellate jurisdiction. An appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction, and section 1237, subdivision (b) permits a criminal defendant to appeal from a postjudgment order affecting the party's substantial rights. Whether substantial rights are affected depends on the nature of the claim and the trial court's ruling, not the claim's merits. Under People v. Faustinos, a decision not to act on a request the defendant was not entitled to make is not appealable as an order affecting substantial rights.
Assembly Bill No. 600 amended section 1172.1 effective January 1, 2024. Subdivision (a)(1) permits recall and resentencing on the trial court's own motion when applicable sentencing law subsequently changes. Subdivision (c), however, gives a defendant no entitlement to petition for relief and requires no response to a request. Although changes since Linares's 2012 sentencing gave the trial court jurisdiction to act, it declined. Applying People v. Hodge, the panel held that a defendant without a right to demand a decision loses no substantial right when the court declines to make one. The order was not appealable, requiring dismissal rather than a ruling on the merits of the gang-expert argument.
Key Takeaways
- A trial court may have authority under section 1172.1, subdivision (a)(1) to recall and resentence on its own motion without the defendant having any right to file a petition or demand a ruling.
- The Third District held that declining to act on an unauthorized section 1172.1 petition does not affect the defendant's substantial rights and does not produce an appealable postjudgment order.
- The existence of changed sentencing laws gave the trial court jurisdiction to act, but that jurisdiction did not make its refusal to act appealable.
- Delgadillo's supplemental-brief principles were relevant because this was not Linares's first appeal as of right, but the jurisdictional defect prevented review of his gang-expert argument.
- The disposition was dismissal of the appeal, not a decision approving or rejecting the requested reduction to voluntary manslaughter and a 21-year aggregate sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision separates the trial court's authority to initiate resentencing from a defendant's right to demand a decision or appeal. Changed sentencing law permitted the trial court to act, but its refusal to address Linares's unauthorized request did not affect a substantial right. The Court of Appeal therefore dismissed for lack of an appealable order; it did not affirm a merits denial of resentencing.