Holding a hearing and entering a denial on the merits in response to a defendant’s “invitation” to the court to exercise its discretion to resentence per PC §1172.1, creates an appealable issue.

People v. Craig (2^nd Dist., Div.7, 01/15/2026)

Craig took a plea deal in 2015 for 23 years, pleading guilty to clothing store robberies.  It was a second-striker sentence with enhancements for use of a gun, PC §12022.53(b), and having a prior serious felony, PC §667(a)(1).

In 2024, following the passage of sentencing reform laws, Craig filed with the trial court a PC §1172.1, “petition” to recall his 23-year sentence and conduct a full resentencing under current law.  In response, the trial court held a hearing in November 2024.

At the hearing, the court heard argument from Craig and the prosecutor.  Craig highlighted his rehabilitation while in prison, his employment plans upon release, his young age at the time of the robbery, and the Craig’s codefendant had received a resentencing where his prior serious felony enhancement had been stricken.  The prosecutor recited the effect of Craig’s crime upon his victims and Craig’s prison rule violations. 

The trial court said it considered Craig’s documents, the case history, the plea agreement, and details of the offense.  The court said defendants who accept plea agreements need to live up to their end of the bargain.  It was not persuaded that Craig “was young and that he has ‘rehabilitated’ himself.”  It denied the “petition.”  Craig appealed. 

This panel reverses and remands for a new hearing.

The AG’s first contention is that Craig has no right to appeal.  This because a defendant is not authorized to initiate a recall and resentence under PC §1172.1.  Those authorized to initiate proceedings under 1172.1 include CDCR, the prosecutor, and the trial court (upon changes in law).  A defendant has no ability to “file a petition,” under 1172.1.  What a defendant may do is “invite” or ask the trial court to initiate 1172.1 proceedings on the court’s own motion.  However, a court is not required to respond to a defendant’s invitation, 1172.1(c). 

By statute, a defendant has a right to appeal a court order that affects their substantial rights.  The AG points out, correctly, that Craig has no substantial right to initiate his own 1172.1 resentencing.  AG cites to cases holding no right to appeal when a defendant invites 1172.1 resentencing and the trial court summarily denies the invitation.

Craig responds that here the court did not summarily deny his invitation, rather it ordered and held a hearing, took and weighed evidence, and gave a statement of reasons supporting its denial.  This, Craig argues, was a decision on the merits which effected his substantial rights, not a summary denial.

The panel agrees finding the trial court’s actions in holding a hearing, taking and weighing evidence, and ruling on the merits was a constructive acceptance of Craig’s “invitation,” to resentence on the court’s own motion.  The opinion points out the trial court proceeded in the same way it would have if an authorized party (prosecutor, CDCR, etc.) had initiated the process, finding Craig’s substantial rights were affected and a right to appeal attached.

On to the merits of the appeal, the panel finds the trial court erred in two ways.  First, it denied resentencing based on its belief someone who takes a plea bargain must honor it.  This is an improper reason.  “Trial courts are not bound by the terms of an earlier plea agreement when resentencing under [1172.1].  Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal. 4^th 64, 66.  

Second, the trial court did not consider that which it was legally required to consider, Craig’s  rehabilitation efforts and young age at the time of the crime.  The court, “shall consider postconviction factors, included . . . the disciplinary record and record of rehabilitation while incarcerated.”  PC §1172.1(a)(5).

The panel finds these two errors were prejudicial.  That had trial court not committed the two errors, it was more likely than not Craig would have been resentenced.  The upshot is Craig gets another 1172.1 hearing where the trial court will, hopefully, apply the correct law.