Full Opinion

Filed 10/21/26 P. v. Linares CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) THE PEOPLE, C104127 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CM033710) v. ANTONIO MONTES LINARES, Defendant and Appellant. After a jury found defendant Antonio Montes Linares guilty of first degree murder and found two firearm enhancement allegations true, the trial court sentenced him to a term of 50 years to life. Defendant appeals from the trial court’s order declining to address his request for recall and resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) and People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief arguing the gang expert’s testimony presented a false narrative to the jury about motive. Because the trial court’s order declining to address defendant’s petition is not an appealable 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 postjudgment order and does not otherwise affect defendant’s substantial rights, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The events that gave rise to defendant’s murder conviction are set forth in People v. Linares (May 20, 2016, C071356) (nonpub. opn.) (Linares). 2 We briefly summarize those events here to provide context. When defendant was 19 years old, he shot Jose Sanchez multiple times, killing him. (Linares, supra, C071356.) At the time of the shooting, defendant, Sanchez, and codefendant Timothy Nunez had been “hanging out” at Nunez’s house. (Ibid.) After defendant killed Sanchez, he and Nunez wrapped Sanchez’s body in a shower curtain. (Ibid.) Defendant then transported Sanchez’s body to a remote area where defendant tried to burn it. (Ibid.) After Sanchez’s body was discovered, defendant and Nunez were arrested. (Ibid.) The prosecution charged defendant with premeditated first degree murder and two firearm enhancement allegations. After a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder and found the firearm enhancement allegations true, the trial court sentenced him to 25 years to life on the murder count, plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement under section 12022.53, subdivision (d), for a total sentence of 50 years to life. (Linares, supra, C071356.) The court imposed but stayed sentence on the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement. (Linares, supra, C071356.) In 2025, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.1, asking the trial court to reduce his conviction to voluntary manslaughter and sentence him to 11 years on that count. He also asked the court to reduce his firearm enhancement to 10 2 We incorporate by reference our unpublished opinion in defendant’s prior appeal, Linares, supra, C071356. We cite to the opinion to summarize the background facts of the case and do not rely on the facts set forth in the opinion to resolve the issues raised in this appeal. 2 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).” Defendant appeals. DISCUSSION In Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at page 441, our Supreme Court held that Courts of Appeal must “conduct a review of the entire record whenever appointed counsel submits a brief on direct appeal [that] raises no specific issues or describes the appeal as frivolous.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 221.) This procedure applies “to the first appeal as of right and is compelled by the constitutional right to counsel under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” (Delgadillo, at p. 221.) In Delgadillo, our Supreme Court concluded the Wende review procedures do not apply to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-222.) More importantly, the filing of a supplemental brief does not compel an appellate court to independently review the entire record “to identify unraised issues,” although it may exercise its discretion to do so. (Id. at p. 232.) Rather, where a defendant has filed a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written opinion.” (Ibid.) Although Delgadillo determined the applicable review procedures in the specific context of a postconviction relief order under section 1172.6, the same principles the court identified in Delgadillo are relevant here, given that this was not defendant’s first appeal as of right. In his supplemental brief, defendant contends the prosecution’s gang expert presented a false narrative about defendant’s motive for killing Sanchez to the jury, a narrative that was different from the other false narrative the prosecution presented in opposition to his section 1172.1 petition. Before reviewing defendant’s claim, we must first determine whether the trial court’s order declining to consider defendant’s resentencing petition is an appealable order. 3 “[A]n appealable judgment or order is essential to appellate jurisdiction.” (People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254.) And “ ‘unless specified by statute, no judgment or order is appealable.’ ” (Ibid.) Section 1237, subdivision (b) authorizes criminal defendants to appeal “[f]rom any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” “Whether the substantial rights of a party are affected depends on the type of claim raised in trial court, not the strength of that claim. That is, whether the claim affects substantial rights ‘does not turn on whether that party’s claim is meritorious, but instead on the nature of the claim and the court’s ruling thereto.’ ” (People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 693.) Where a defendant is not entitled to request relief in the first instance, the court’s decision not to act on an unauthorized request “ ‘is not appealable as an order affecting’ ” the defendant’s substantial rights. (Id. at pp. 695-696.) Effective January 1, 2024, Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1172.1 to permit a trial court to recall and resentence a defendant “on its own motion … at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law.” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); see Stats. 2023, ch. 446, § 2.) Assembly Bill No. 600 also added section 1172.1, subdivision (c), which specifically provides that “[a] defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.” (See Stats. 2023, ch. 446, § 2.) This language makes clear that a defendant is not entitled to request relief, and it “excuses the trial court from any responsibility to rule on such a request, or even to respond.” (People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 996.) Therefore, a defendant who files an unauthorized request for resentencing “has no right to demand that the trial court … make … a decision.” (Ibid.) And “[i]f the defendant has no right to a decision, the trial court’s choice not to make one does not deprive the defendant of any right, much less a substantial one.” (Ibid.) 4 Here, given that the sentencing laws have changed since defendant was sentenced in 2012, the trial court had jurisdiction to act on defendant’s unauthorized petition. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) It declined to do so. The court’s choice not to act on the unauthorized petition did not affect defendant’s substantial rights. (People v. Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 996.) Therefore, the order is not appealable. And because the order is not appealable, we must dismiss the appeal. (People v. Clark, supra, 67 Cal.App.5th at p. 254.) DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed. /s/ ROBIE, Acting P. J. We concur: /s/ KRAUSE, J. /s/ FEINBERG, J. 5