Kern County District Attorney Lacked Authority to Appeal Alameda Resentencing Order on Behalf of the People

The People v. Joseph Toussaint III (Cal. Ct. App., Sept. 30, 2026, No. A171743) 2026 WL 2932739

Holding: Only the Authorized Prosecutors Could Decide Whether the People Would Appeal

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction. Although the Alameda County Superior Court’s resentencing order was appealable by the People, the Kern County District Attorney lacked authority to invoke that right on the People’s behalf. The prosecutors with authority to decide whether the People would appeal were the Alameda County District Attorney, who participated in the resentencing proceeding, and the Attorney General, who has constitutional supervisory authority over district attorneys. Neither chose to appeal. The Kern County District Attorney could not override that decision merely because the resentencing order affected a conviction originally obtained in Kern County.

The court also refused to treat the unauthorized appeal as a petition for writ relief. If the petition were viewed as one filed by the People, the People had an adequate remedy by direct appeal and knowingly declined to use it through the prosecutors authorized to speak for them. If the petition were viewed as one filed by the Kern County District Attorney in her own right, she lacked a beneficial interest distinct from the People’s general interest in criminal enforcement. The result was dismissal, even though the court acknowledged that a possible sentencing error might go unreviewed.

Alameda Resentenced Toussaint and Ordered His Release

Joseph Toussaint III was convicted in Alameda County of two first degree murders committed in 1976, when he was 17 years old. The Alameda County Superior Court imposed concurrent life sentences. Nearly 20 years later, while serving those sentences in a Kern County prison, Toussaint was convicted in Kern County of possessing marijuana in prison. Because the Three Strikes Law then required a third-strike sentence, the Kern County Superior Court imposed a consecutive term of 25 years to life.

In 2024, after statutory changes expanded trial courts’ recall-and-resentencing authority under Penal Code section 1172.1, Toussaint asked the Alameda court to recall his sentence. By then, he was 65 years old and had been incarcerated for 48 years. The Alameda court accepted the request, citing his age, rehabilitation, and lack of current dangerousness. It resentenced the Alameda murder convictions as voluntary manslaughter, imposed consecutive 11-year terms, and then addressed the Kern County prison-possession conviction by dismissing the strike allegations and imposing a concurrent four-year upper term. The new aggregate sentence was 22 years, less than half the time Toussaint had already served, and the court ordered his immediate release.

Kern Tried to Appeal After Alameda and the Attorney General Declined

The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation questioned whether the Alameda court could modify the Kern County sentence. The Alameda court responded that it intended to resentence Toussaint on the aggregate term, including the Kern sentence, to effectuate his release. After Toussaint sought habeas relief to secure release, the Attorney General reported that the Department had released him and asked that the habeas petition be denied as moot.

The Kern County District Attorney then appeared specially in the Alameda proceeding and moved to vacate the resentencing order, arguing the Alameda court lacked jurisdiction to recall or modify the Kern County sentence. The Alameda court did not rule on that motion. Neither the Alameda County District Attorney nor the Attorney General filed an appeal from the resentencing order. The Kern District Attorney nevertheless filed a notice of appeal purporting to act on behalf of the People.

Authority to Appeal: The People’s Right Belonged to the People, Not to Any Interested County Prosecutor

The court began from a key distinction: the order was appealable, but that did not answer who had authority to decide whether the People would appeal it. Penal Code section 1238 permits “the people” to appeal certain postjudgment criminal orders, including orders reducing punishment or affecting the People’s substantial rights. But criminal prosecutions are conducted in the name of the People, who are a sovereign entity represented by public prosecutors. The People’s interest is not simply to win, but to secure justice.

That feature made the appeal decision materially different from a private litigant’s choice to appeal. Different prosecutors could reasonably disagree over whether a resentencing order was adverse to justice. But the People themselves cannot choose among competing public lawyers. The law therefore had to identify which official, in this setting, could speak for the People. The Alameda District Attorney had participated in the resentencing proceeding, and the Attorney General had constitutional authority to supervise district attorneys and to ensure uniform enforcement of state law. The Attorney General expressly declined to authorize the Kern District Attorney to represent the People in the appeal and also declined to take over the appeal himself.

The Kern District Attorney identified no statute, rule, or precedent authorizing a county prosecutor who did not participate in another county’s resentencing proceeding to override the authorized prosecutors’ decision not to appeal. The court emphasized that a county district attorney’s authority to prosecute public offenses generally concerns offenses within that county and remains subject to the Attorney General’s supervision. Because the Attorney General had declined authorization, and because no law supported the Kern District Attorney’s contrary position, the court held she lacked authority to exercise the People’s appellate right.

Writ Relief: The Unauthorized Appeal Could Not Be Recast as Mandamus

The Attorney General suggested the court might treat the appeal as a writ petition. The court rejected that path under either possible theory. First, if the writ petition were treated as one by the People represented by the Kern District Attorney, the problem was the availability of an adequate legal remedy. The resentencing order was immediately appealable by the People. The Alameda District Attorney and the Attorney General knew about the order and chose not to appeal. The People could not decline an adequate appellate remedy through the officials authorized to act for them, then claim through an unauthorized prosecutor that appeal was inadequate and extraordinary writ review was necessary.

Second, if the writ petition were treated as one by the Kern District Attorney on behalf of her own office, she lacked the required beneficial interest. Mandamus requires a petitioner to show a special interest or right above that held by the public generally. The Kern District Attorney did not identify any interest in the Alameda resentencing order separate from the People’s interest in criminal enforcement. The fact that her office had prosecuted the Kern County conviction did not transform that public interest into an independent county-office interest.

The court distinguished cases involving agencies with independent statutory duties and powers. In those cases, an agency may have its own legally protected interest in enforcing statutory obligations. By contrast, the Kern District Attorney had no comparable independent statutory authority over Alameda’s resentencing decision. Section 1172.1 gives sentencing-county district attorneys limited roles, such as recommending recall and resentencing or protecting plea bargains in specified circumstances, but those roles did not confer a general right to challenge another county’s resentencing order by writ.

Sentencing Merits: Possible Error Did Not Create Jurisdiction

The court acknowledged that dismissing the appeal might leave a possible sentencing error unresolved. The parties disagreed about whether the Alameda court had authority to resentence the Kern conviction and, if it erred, why. The Kern District Attorney argued the Alameda court lacked authority to alter the Kern judgment. Toussaint argued the Alameda court acted within its resentencing authority. The Attorney General suggested the court may have had authority to consider the matter but may have erred in how it handled the prison-offense sentence and the full resentencing rule.

Those merits disputes, however, did not solve the threshold defect. Appellate jurisdiction depends on a valid invocation of the appellate court’s authority by an authorized appellant. Because the Kern District Attorney lacked authority to appeal for the People, and because writ relief was unavailable, the court did not decide the underlying resentencing question. The authorized prosecutors chose to accept the resentencing order and close the matter, and that choice controlled.

Disposition and Practical Rule

The appeal was dismissed. The practical rule is that when a resentencing order entered in one county affects a conviction or sentence from another county, the affected county’s district attorney does not automatically gain authority to appeal on behalf of the People. Unless the Attorney General authorizes that prosecutor to act, or some statute independently grants authority, the appeal decision belongs to the prosecutor participating in the proceeding and to the Attorney General. A county prosecutor also cannot evade that limit by labeling the dispute as a writ petition without showing both the absence of an adequate appellate remedy and a beneficial interest independent of the People’s general law-enforcement interest.

In short, the People cannot, on the one hand, knowingly choose (through the Alameda DA and Attorney General) not to exercise their right to appeal, and claim (through the Kern DA), on the other hand, that an immediate appeal is not an adequate remedy and writ review is warranted.

The resentencing process here did not in any way abrogate these grants of statutory authority to county DAs. And we cannot embrace the notion that beyond these statutorily accorded interests, a county DA has an interest, not on behalf of the People but on behalf of their own office, that can support writ review of a resentencing order that the Attorney General and the county DA representing the People have chosen not to appeal.

The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only.  Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.