Filed 7/22/26 P. v. Sangalang CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
THE PEOPLE, B339420
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. KA047369)
v.
JOHNNY SANGALANG,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Jacqueline Lewis, Judge. Affirmed.
Johnny Sangalang, in pro. per.; Michael Reed, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Johnny Sangalang appeals from an order denying his
petition for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. His
appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216, and Sangalang filed a supplemental brief. As we
now explain, our independent review finds no arguable issue or
error.
In 2000, Sangalang pleaded no contest to assault by means
of force likely to produce great bodily injury with a great bodily
injury enhancement (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7), and he
admitted a one-year prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A court sentenced
him to eight years in prison. The sentence included a one-year
term under section 667.5, subdivision (b).
In 2023, the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (the department) identified Sangalang as a person
potentially eligible for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483.
That bill made legally invalid any section 667.5, subdivision (b)
enhancement except ones imposed for a sexually violent offense.
The trial court appointed counsel for Sangalang, who filed
briefing.
The People opposed resentencing on the ground Sangalang
was no longer serving a sentence in this case. Instead, he was in
custody serving a 25-years-to-life sentence imposed in 2011 in a
different case. In a supplemental opposition, the People
submitted counsel’s declaration stating that the department’s
correctional case records manager represented that Sangalang
had not been incarcerated on this case since May 2012, although
he was still in custody serving an indeterminate sentence in
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2
another case. The People submitted worksheets supporting the
manager’s statements.
On July 17, 2024, the trial court found Sangalang ineligible
for relief under section 1172.75 because he was no longer serving
a sentence on this case.2
Sangalang appealed, and his appellate counsel filed a
Delgadillo brief. We directed counsel to send the record to
Sangalang, and Sangalang filed a supplemental brief. In his
supplemental brief, Sangalang argued that he was entitled to
resentencing because he has never left custody.
However, section 1172.75, subdivision (b), provides that the
department shall identify persons “in their custody currently
serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement
described in subdivision (a).” The trial court must then “verify
that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement
described in subdivision (a).” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) Sangalang is
not currently serving a judgment based on an enhancement
under section 667.5, subdivision (b). He is therefore not eligible
for resentencing. (See People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th
440, 451–452.)
Finally, to the extent Sangalang argues that new appellate
counsel should be appointed for him or otherwise raises
ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, we reject the
argument and request for new appellate counsel. (See generally
People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118; People v. Lyons (2009) 178
Cal.App.4th 1355, 1359, fn. 1 [appellate counsel is “ ‘ “captain of
2 Counsel represented Sangalang at the hearing, but
Sangalang was not present. The trial court found that since it
was merely determining eligibility for resentencing and not
resentencing Sangalang, he did not have a right to be present.
3
the ship” ’ ” who decides what contentions are arguably
meritorious].)
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ASHWORTH, J.*
We concur:
ADAMS, Acting P. J. HANASONO, J.
*
Retired Judge of the El Dorado Superior Court, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
4
