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. Huynh CA2/4

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B344588

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (2.8K)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Huynh 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, B344588

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA081657)
v.

JONATHAN HUYNH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Laura Lasecke, Judge. Dismissed.
A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, and
Jonathan Huynh, in pro. per., for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Jonathan Huynh appeals from an order denying his request
for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1.1 His appellate counsel

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.
filed a brief raising no issues and requested we proceed under People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Huynh filed a supplemental
brief. Because the trial court’s order is not appealable, we dismiss the
appeal.

BACKGROUND
In 2010, a jury convicted Huynh of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a))
and found true the allegation that he personally used a deadly weapon (knife)
during the commission of the crime (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court
sentenced Huynh to 26 years to life in state prison.
On January 21, 2025, Huynh filed a request for resentencing under
section 1172.1, citing Assembly Bill No. 600 and Senate Bill No. 261. On
February 20, 2025, the trial court summarily denied the request.
Huynh timely appealed. His appointed appellate counsel filed a brief
raising no issues and requesting that we exercise our discretion to
independently review the record for error pursuant to Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at pages 231–232. Huynh filed a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION
Section 1237 generally governs a defendant’s right to appeal in
criminal cases. Under that section, a defendant may appeal from (1) a final
judgment of conviction (§ 1237, subd. (a)), and (2) “[f]rom any order made
after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party” (§ 1237, subd.
(b)).
Under section 1172.1, the “[trial] court may, on its own motion, within
120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable
sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed

2
by new statutory authority or case law, . . . recall the sentence and
commitment previously ordered and resentence the defendant in the same
manner as if they had not previously been sentenced.” (§ 1172.1, subd.
(a)(1).) The court may also act upon the recommendation of various
designated correctional or law enforcement authorities. (Ibid.)
The trial court’s order denying Huynh’s request for resentencing under
section 1172.1 is not appealable. As the court explained in People v.
Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687 (Faustinos), 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, supra, at p. 696.) Thus, we must dismiss Huynh’s 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.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

COLLINS, J.

MORI, J.

3