Filed 6/23/26 P. v. Johnson 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B350281
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. LA041763-02)
v.
DANIEL LEE JOHNSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of
Los Angeles County. Gregory A. Dohi, Judge. Affirmed.
A. William Bartz, Jr., under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________________
On October 21, 2003, the People filed an information
charging Defendant Daniel Lee Johnson with two counts of
robbery (Pen. Code, § 211;1 counts 1 & 3) and one count of
attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211; count 2). The People also alleged
two previous robbery convictions under section 211 as felony
strikes. On June 25, 2004, Johnson was tried in a court trial and
found guilty on count 1 for robbery while being acquitted on
counts 2 and 3. On July 23, 2004, the trial court sentenced
Johnson to a third-strike sentence of 25 years to life on count 1
with a custody credit of 683 days.
On September 25, 2025, Johnson, in propria persona, filed
a request for recall of sentence under section 1172.1. In his
request, he provided the following reasons, “I didn’t understand
what I was doing at the time of the robbery. Because of many
groups and time, I now have an understanding of what I did. I
am a changed man, and I need some relief.” In chambers without
any appearances, the trial court addressed Johnson’s motion.
The trial court denied the motion and noted that the trial court
was not required to respond to the request. Nonetheless, the trial
court elaborated, “The Court bases its ruling on the seriousness
of the underlying offenses and on Defendant’s prior criminal
history, which includes several felony offenses.” It also concluded
by noting, “Defendant’s motion, which consists of one paragraph,
does not include any legal authority or prison records to justify a
recall of sentencing.”
On October 28, 2025, Johnson appealed the trial court’s
order denying his petition for relief. On March 26, 2026,
1 Further undesignated statutory citations are to the Penal
Code.
2
Johnson’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no
issues for appeal under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216
(Delgadillo). On April 21, 2026, Johnson filed a supplemental
brief.
Johnson challenges the trial judge’s denial of his request to
recall the sentence under section 1172.1, but his argument fails.
Johnson’s counsel is correct that a line of authority has concluded
that at least some section 1172.1 rulings are nonappealable when
a petitioner initiates relief in the trial court. (See, e.g., People v.
Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999; People v. Faustinos
(2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 695–696; see also § 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”].)
However, another line of cases has found that some
section 1172.1 rulings are appealable where the trial court
entertains a request from the petitioner on the merits. For
instance, where the trial court received a petition with multiple
exhibits filed by retained counsel, received documents from the
People, conducted a hearing, entertained argument, reviewed the
record, and then ruled on the matter, our colleagues in Division 7
concluded the ruling was appealable because it affected the
petitioner’s substantial rights. (People v. Craig (2026) 117
Cal.App.5th 1165, 1169–1170; accord, People v. Olea (2025) 115
Cal.App.5th 889, 902 [contested hearing with petitioner present
remotely, counsel appointed, records subpoenaed by petitioner’s
counsel].) The line of authority concluding that section 1172.1
rulings can be appealable distinguishes between petitions with
3
little process and those with greater procedural formalities and
consideration of the merits. (People v. Craig, at pp. 1169–1170.)
Here, even assuming the ruling on the petition is
appealable, we see no abuse of discretion in denying the petition.
As the trial court noted, the petition in the trial court contained
no factual development from prison records and pointed to no
legal authority. Similarly, in his supplemental brief on appeal,
Johnson argues that he is a changed, better man, reiterating a
point he made in his initial petition. While we commend Johnson
for any potential positive changes he may have made, his
supplemental brief does not point to any potential abuse of
discretion in the trial court’s decision below. (People v. Olea,
supra, 115 Cal.App.5th at p. 902.)
Finally, we decline to exercise our discretion to
independently review the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at p. 226.)
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for
relief under section 1172.1 petition is affirmed.
VIRAMONTES, J.
WE CONCUR:
WILEY, Acting P. J.
SCHERB, J.
4