Case: People v. Chatman - 5DCA holds that a defendant’s unauthorized petition for resentencing does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant

Decided: 2/4/2025

Docket

Case Overview:

Procedural posture: Appeal from the superior court’s order denying a defendant-filed petition for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1

Plaintiff-respondent: The People of the State of California

Defendant-appellant: Demidrick Chatman

Fifth District Court of Appeal case no.: F087868

Appeal from: Tulare Superior Court (Leedy, J.)

Advocates: Amanda D. Cary for the People; Richard Fitzer for Chatman

Questions:

(1) Whether a criminal defendant’s filing of an unauthorized petition for relief under Penal Code § 1172.1 deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant otherwise afforded to the court by § 1172.1.

(2) Whether an order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is appealable.

Answers:

(1) No. A defendant’s filing of an unauthorized petition under § 1172.1 does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant. Section 1172.1 provides the superior court with jurisdiction and discretion to recall and resentence the defendant on its motion.

(2) Yes. Though the superior court is not required to rule on a defendant’s request for relief under § 1172.1, when a trial court affirmatively denies a petition, it has effectively ruled on the petition. In doing so, the court’s ruling qualifies as an appealable order when it affects a person’s substantial rights. An order denying a defendant’s request for relief under § 1172.1 affects the defendant’s substantial rights.

Facts:

In 2017, the defendant pleaded no contest to multiple charges, including attempted second-degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and misdemeanor offenses. He also admitted to firearm enhancements and a prior serious felony strike. As a result, he was sentenced to 27 years and 8 months in prison. The court imposed restitution and other fines.

In 2023, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.6. The court denied the petition on the ground that the defendant failed to state a prima facie case for eligibility because the defendant did not allege, nor did the record show, that the defendant was convicted of or charged with murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter.

In 2024, the defendant filed a “request for recall of sentence and resentencing under Assembly Bill 600 and Penal Code section 1172.1” using a prepared form. The defendant argued that changes in sentencing laws made him eligible for reconsideration. The court denied the defendant’s request and stated that it lacked jurisdiction to resentence the defendant. When the defendant submitted an identical request on March 21, 2024, the court denied the request without further explanation.

Outcome:

The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order denying defendant’s § 1172.1 petition for resentencing, and remanded for further proceedings.

Justice Peña authored the opinion, joined by Justices Hill and Smith.

District Split:

5DCA: An order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is appealable.

2DCA: An order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is not appealable.

In People v. Hodge, 107 Cal. App. 5th 985, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 (2024), the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 2, held that a superior court’s decision denying a defendant’s postjudgment request for resentencing was an “order” under Penal Code § 1237. In this respect, Hodge and Chatman are in agreement.

However, the Hodge Court also held that “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).” Hodge, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 631.

Links:

Westlaw: 2025 WL 384047