Filed 10/1/26 P. v. Davis CA2/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 FIVE
THE PEOPLE, B348762
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No.
v. YA096670-02,
YA095781-01)
MALIK DAVIS,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County, Laura Ellison, Judge. Dismissed in part,
affirmed in part.
Nancy Haydt, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
In 2017, the District Attorney for the County of Los Angeles
charged defendant and appellant Malik Davis (defendant) with,
among other things, 16 counts of residential burglary (Pen. Code,1
§ 459) in two cases: Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos.
YA095781 (the 781 case) and YA096670 (the 670 case). There
was also an allegation that the crimes were committed for the
benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (d)). Defendant
pled no contest to seven of the charged burglary counts: four in
the 781 case and three in the other; he also admitted the
associated gang allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant
to 22 years in prison: 14 years, eight months in the 781 case and
seven years, four months in the 670 case.
Years later, defendant submitted a section 1172.1 request
for resentencing in each case. The statute authorizes certain law
enforcement and parole officials to recommend a court recall and
reduce a convicted defendant’s sentence but provides “[a]
defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief” and if a
“defendant requests consideration for relief . . . the court is not
required to respond.” (§ 1172.1, subds. (a), (c).) The trial court
appointed counsel for defendant and the appointed attorney filed
a brief urging the court to resentence defendant in light of his
efforts at rehabilitation and because one of his co-defendants in
the 670 case had been released on parole after resentencing.
The trial court “declin[ed] to exercise jurisdiction” to
resentence defendant in the 781 case. In the 670 case, the court
struck the gang enhancement and resentenced defendant to four
years in prison (a reduction of three years, four months). The
1
Undesignated statutory references that follow are to the
Penal Code.
2
court also ordered the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to calculate defendant’s custody credits.
Defendant noticed appeals from the trial court’s orders, this
court combined the notices in a single appellate docket, and this
court appointed counsel to represent defendant. After examining
the record, defendant’s attorney filed a People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216 brief raising no issues and asking us to
independently review the record. Before the cause was assigned
to a panel, this court also invited defendant to submit a
supplemental brief and he did.
The appeal in case number 781 is not properly before us
and it will be dismissed. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c) [“A defendant is not
entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this
section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under
this section, the court is not required to respond”]; People v.
Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 692.)
The appeal in case number 670 is properly before us, but
defendant does not challenge the court’s order resentencing him
in that case.2 That being the case, we shall affirm that judgment
2
In his supplemental brief, defendant also maintains his
custody credits should total 3,326 days (1,054 credits at the time
of his original sentencing, plus 2,272 credits earned between his
original sentencing and his resentencing), and not the 2,272
credits reflected in the July 18, 2025, abstract of judgment for the
670 case. Although he states CDCR has requested the trial court
restore 2,272 days of credit, and although he has not yet received
a response to a letter he sent separately to the trial court about
the calculation of his custody credits, he has requested we
intervene and amend the abstract of judgment to show a total of
3,326 days. We decline because we do not know if the matter has
been finally resolved in the trial court. (§ 1237.1.)
3
with no independent review of the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14
Cal.5th at 232.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal from the order in Case No. YA095781 is
dismissed and the order in Case No. YA096670 is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
BAKER, J.
We concur:
HOFFSTADT, P. J.
MOOR, J.
4