People v. Arias CA4/2

CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal
DecidedSeptember 2, 2025
DocketE085248
StatusUnpublished

This text of People v. Arias CA4/2 (People v. Arias CA4/2) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering California Court of Appeal primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People v. Arias CA4/2, (Cal. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

Filed 9/2/25 P. v. Arias CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Defendant and Appellant, E085248

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1805023)

JOSEPH ANDREW ARIAS, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge.

Dismissed.

James M. Kehoe, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Joseph Arias in Pro.

Per. for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 On the court’s own motion, the appeal filed in the superior court on April 17,

2025, from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s postjudgment petition for resentencing

under Penal Code section 1172.75 is dismissed because it does not affect defendant’s

substantial rights. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b).) Defendant was not authorized to bring

a petition for resentencing under section 1172.75, and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to

adjudicate his petition. (See People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380-382, 384

[“[S]ection 1172.75 simply does not contemplate resentencing relief initiated by any

individual defendant’s petition or motion.”].) Since the court lacked jurisdiction when it

denied defendant’s resentencing petition, denial of the petition could not have affected

his substantial rights. (People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726.)

Accordingly, the order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing is not an appealable

order, and the appeal must be dismissed. (Id. at p. 1725; see People v. Fuimaono (2019)

32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

2 DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS J.

We concur:

CODRINGTON Acting P. J.

RAPHAEL J.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Chlad
6 Cal. App. 4th 1719 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
People v. Fuimaono
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545 (California Court of Appeals, 5th District, 2019)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
People v. Arias CA4/2, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arias-ca42-calctapp-2025.