Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Markhasev CA2/4

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B344844

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Markhasev CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B344844

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County
Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA109470 )

v.

MICHAEL MARKHASEV,

Defendant and
Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Lauren Weis Birnstein, Judge. Dismissed.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Michael Markhasev appeals from a postjudgment order
declining to act on his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal
Code section 1172.1.1 His appointed counsel filed a brief under
People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) raising no
issues. Markhasev filed a supplemental brief requesting that we
“close this appeal.” We conclude the trial court’s order was not
appealable and dismiss the appeal.
In 1998, a jury found Markhasev guilty of murdering Ennis
Cosby during a robbery attempt. (§§ 187, subd. (a), 190.2, subd.
(a)(17), 211, 664, subd. (a).) The jury also found true allegations
that Markhasev personally used a firearm in connection with
both the murder and attempted robbery. (§ 12022.5, subd. (a).)
The court sentenced Markhasev to life without the possibility of
parole plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement.
In November 2024, through counsel, Markhasev filed an
“invitation to recall and resentence petitioner” pursuant to
section 1172.1. He supported the petition with citations to his
rehabilitative and educational achievements while incarcerated,
as well as laudatory chronos and letters of support. Markhasev
subsequently supplemented the petition with additional exhibits,
including documents related to his educational achievements and
his handwritten “revised and updated reentry plans.”
On March 7, 2025, Markhasev’s counsel and the
prosecution appeared in court to discuss the petition. At the
outset of the discussion, the court observed that it was not
required to respond to or take any action on the petition. After
hearing arguments from counsel, the court stated that it would
not respond to the petition. The court subsequently issued a

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.

2
minute order stating, “The matter is heard and argued. Pursuant
to Penal Code section 1172.1(c), the court is not required to
respond or take any action on the Defendant’s petition for
resentencing pursuant to Penal Code Section 1172.1.”
Markhasev timely appealed. His appointed counsel filed a
brief that summarized the procedural history of the case, raised
no issues for appellate review, and asked this court to allow
Markhasev to file a supplemental brief under Delgadillo, supra,
14 Cal.5th 216. Markhasev then submitted a supplemental brief
in which he stated that he accepted the trial court’s decision and
requested that we “close this appeal.”
Section 1237, subdivision (b), which governs the appeal of
postjudgment orders in felony criminal matters, authorizes
appeals only from postjudgment orders that “affect[ ] the
substantial rights” of the defendant. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) Section
1172.1, which authorizes the trial court to resentence a defendant
at any time on its own motion (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1)), expressly
states that a defendant is “not entitled to file a petition seeking
relief from the court under this section,” and the court is “not
required to respond” to any petition filed. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).)
Accordingly, “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).” (People v. Hodge
(2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999; accord, People v. Brammer
(2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 675, 696; People v. Brinson (2025) 112
Cal.App.5th 1040, 1046; People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th
991, 994, 998-999; People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th
687, 696-697.) Where there is no substantial right at stake, a

3
postjudgment order is not appealable under section 1237,
subdivision (b). (See People v. Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at
p. 996.) An appeal from a nonappealable order must be
dismissed. (People v. Brammer, supra, 117 Cal.App.5th at p.
696.) Markhasev has not raised any argument to the contrary.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

COLLINS, J.

We concur:

ZUKIN, P. J.

MORI, J.

4