Filed 10/1/26 P. v. Colvin CA2/8
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT
THE PEOPLE, B350172
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA095220-01)
v.
DANIEL COLVIN,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Kelvin D. Flier, Judge. Appeal dismissed.
Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_______________________
Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo), we review an order denying Daniel Colvin’s petition
for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1. The order
denying resentencing is not an appealable order. We dismiss the
appeal.
BACKGROUND
On September 2, 2008, a jury convicted appellant Daniel
Colvin of first degree murder, and willful, deliberate and
premeditated attempted murder. The jury also found true
firearm and gang enhancements on both counts.
On December 10, 2008, the trial court sentenced Colvin to
an aggregate term of 50 years to life in prison. The sentence
comprises 25 years to life for the murder conviction plus a
consecutive 25 years to life for the firearm enhancement. The
court imposed a concurrent sentence for the attempted murder
conviction.
On September 5, 2025, Colvin filed a petition for recall of
sentence and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. On
October 10, 2025, the trial court found that under section 1172.1,
subdivision (c), Colvin was not entitled to file a petition seeking
relief and the court was not required to respond to the request.
The court took no action on the petition. Colvin timely appealed.
We appointed counsel to represent Colvin on appeal. On
July 30, 2026, counsel filed a no issue brief pursuant to People v.
Delgadillo. Counsel advised us they told Colvin he could file his
own supplemental brief within 30 days and sent him transcripts
of the record on appeal as well as a copy of the Delgadillo brief.
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
On July 30, 2026, this court sent Colvin notice that a brief
raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised him he
had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental brief or letter
stating any issues he believes we should consider. We also
advised him that if he did not file a supplemental brief, the
appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
On August 31, 2026, Colvin filed a supplemental brief. He
asks us to conduct an independent review of the record in light of
the fact that he was not the actual shooter.
DISCUSSION
Colvin filed his petition for resentencing under section
1172.75. Section 1172.75 retroactively invalidates most one-year
prior prison term enhancements imposed under former section
667.5, subdivision (b) and mandates full resentencing hearings.
Colvin’s abstract of judgment does not include section 667.5 prior
prison term enhancements. He was not entitled to relief under
section 1172.75.
The trial court reviewed the petition under section 1172.1
and took no action. Under section 1172.1, a trial court may recall
and resentence “at any time” upon the recommendation of the
Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation,
the Board of Parole Hearings, the district attorney of the county
in which the defendant was sentenced, or the Attorney General if
the Department of Justice originally prosecuted the case.
(§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) Notably, section 1172.1, by its terms,
denies a defendant the right to petition the court for recall and
resentencing. (Id., subd. (c) [“[a] defendant is not entitled to file a
petition seeking relief from the court under this section,” and “[i]f
a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section,
the court is not required to respond.”].)
3
There is no right to appeal from the denial of a petition
filed under section 1172.1 by a defendant. (People v. Hodge
(2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 995; People v. Faustinos (2025)
109 Cal.App.5th 687, 692 [order declining to act on defendant’s
unauthorized section 1172.1 petition is not an appealable order];
People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1047 [same].)
Colvin is not entitled to relief under section 1172.1. He is neither
authorized to file a petition nor entitled to appeal the trial court’s
order.
We decline the request that we conduct an independent
review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
STRATTON, P. J.
We concur:
VIRAMONTES, J.
SCHERB, J.
4