Filed 8/31/26 P. v. Burton CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE
THE PEOPLE, B345481
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA373315)
v.
BERNARD BURTON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Bernard Burton, in pro. per.; Karyn H. Bucur, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________________
Bernard Burton appeals from an order denying his petition
for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1171.1 Burton’s
appointed counsel filed a brief identifying no issues on appeal,
requesting that we determine appealability and that we follow
the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th
216. Burton filed a supplemental brief requesting “review of
whether the unique circumstances surrounding his original
appellate process resulted in the loss of meaningful appellate
review.” We conclude that the order from which Burton appeals
is not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal.
BACKGROUND
On February 24, 2011, appellant was charged in count 2 of
the amended information with second-degree robbery in violation
of section 211. The amended information further alleged that
appellant suffered five prior convictions of a serious or violent
felony pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d)
and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). The amended information
further alleged two one-year prison priors pursuant to section
667.5, subdivision (b). The amended information further alleged
appellant suffered five prior convictions of a serious felony
pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1).
On June 27, 2011, a jury found appellant guilty of second
degree robbery. On July 28, 2011, the trial court found the prior
convictions to be true pursuant to sections 1170.12, subdivisions
(a) through (d) and 667, subdivision (a)(1). The trial court
imposed a total term of 35 years to life (25 years to life pursuant
to section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), plus an
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
additional 10 years for the 2 five-year prior convictions of a
serious felony pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a)(1).)
On March 25, 2025, appellant filed a “Motion for
Resentencing Pursuant to Assembly Bill 2483 - Penal Code sec.
1171.” On March 26, 2025, the court denied appellant’s request
for resentencing. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
“ ‘The right to appeal is statutory only, and a party may not
appeal a trial court’s judgment, order or ruling unless such is
expressly made appealable by statute.’ ” (People v. Hodge (2024)
107 Cal.App.5th 985, 992 (Hodge).) “[A] defendant may appeal
from (1) a final judgment of conviction (§ 1237, subd. (a)), and (2)
‘any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights
of the party.’ (§ 1237, subd. (b).)” (Ibid.) This appeal is not from
a final judgment of conviction.
Burton identified section 1171 as the basis for his petition
for resentencing. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025,
requires the superior court to “develop a plan for fair and efficient
handling of postconviction proceedings,” including but not limited
to proceedings under sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7,
and 1172.75. (§ 1171, subds. (a) & (b).) Section 1171 is not a
statute providing for resentencing, but instead, a statute
describing procedures for handling postconviction proceedings.
Because section 1171 does not afford a defendant resentencing
relief, the denial of a petition requesting resentencing pursuant
to section 1171 “does not deprive the defendant of any right,
much less a substantial one.” (Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at
p. 996.)
3
We therefore conclude that the trial court’s order denying
relief under section 1171 is not appealable because it did not
affect Burton’s substantial rights.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
M. KIM, J.
We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
BENDIX, J.
4