Filed 8/21/25 P. v. Daniels CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Eleanor Hunter Judge. Dismissed.

Jshawne Lamon Daniels, in pro. per.; Olivia Meme and California Appellate Project, under appointment by the Court of Appeal; for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

__________________________

Jshawne Lamon Daniels appeals after the trial court took no action on his petition for recall and resentencing. We appointed counsel to represent Daniels on appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel for Daniels filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 that did not identify any arguable issues. After independently reviewing the record and the contentions in Daniels’s supplemental brief, we have not identified any either. We dismiss the appeal because it is from a nonappealable order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On February 27, 2019 Daniels was charged by indictment with one count of criminal street gang conspiracy (Pen. Code,¹

§ 182.5) and 74 counts relating to various home invasion robberies and residential burglaries (§§ 211, 459) occurring in the County of Los Angeles between October 1, 2017 and September 27, 2018. The indictment further alleged the crimes were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal street gang. (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1).)

On May 20, 2022 Daniels pleaded no contest to one count of robbery and three counts of first degree burglary. Daniels admitted the gang allegation as to the robbery count. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Daniels to an aggregate term of 20 years, which included the upper term of six years for the robbery count, 10 years for the gang enhancement, and 16 months (one-third the middle term) for each of the three burglary counts. The remaining counts were dismissed pursuant to section 1385.

On April 3, 2024 Daniels filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1172.1. On May 9, 2024 the trial court noted that pursuant to section 1172.1, “a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under section 1172.1. If a defendant requests consideration for such relief, the court is not required to respond. Accordingly, the court will take no further action on defendant’s petition.” Daniels timely appealed.

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Daniels in this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel did not identify any arguable issues and indicated “[t]his court should determine appealability.” On June 20, 2025 counsel advised Daniels that she was filing a brief stating she was unable to find any arguable issues and that Daniels could personally submit a letter brief stating any contentions he wanted the court to consider. Counsel also sent Daniels a copy of the opening brief and the record on appeal.

On June 23, 2025 we received a three-page supplemental brief from Daniels arguing that he is entitled to be resentenced “in light of recent changes to sentencing law and public policy emphasizing rehabilitation and proportionality.” Daniels argues that the “upper term sentence for burglary . . . should be reevaluated” under section 1170, and that the gang enhancement should be struck or reduced in the interest of justice. Daniels also argues that resentencing is proper because he “has made efforts toward rehabilitation and personal growth during his incarceration.”

“The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is expressly made appealable by statute.” (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1159.) The trial court’s decision not to rule on Daniels’s request for resentencing is not appealable. As the court explained in People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 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, at p. 696; see People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, __ [2025 WL 1922432, at p. *3].) Accordingly, we must dismiss the 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.

STONE, J.

We concur:

MARTINEZ, P. J. FEUER, J.