Filed 12/22/20 P. v. Djissa CA2/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

HENRIMICHEL DJISSA,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306152

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA074001)

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________
2

On July 9, 2019, appellant HenriMichel Djissa pleaded no 

contest to one count of assault with a semiautomatic firearm 

pursuant to Penal Code section 245, subdivision (b).1 He 

admitted an allegation that he personally inflicted great bodily 

injury in the commission of the offense, pursuant to section 

12022.7, subdivision (a); and an allegation that he personally 

used a firearm, pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) 

and (d). Djissa waived time for sentencing. The trial court 

sentenced him the same day to a total of nine years in state 

prison, consisting of the low term of three years for the assault 

charge, a consecutive term of three years for the great bodily 

injury enhancement, and a consecutive term of three years for 

the personal use of a firearm.

On March 25, 2020, Djissa filed a motion for modification of 

his sentence in the trial court. He argued that he should be 

resentenced pursuant to amendments to the Penal Code enacted 

by Senate Bill No. 620, which authorized the trial court to strike 

certain firearm enhancements. The trial court construed the 

motion as a motion to recall the sentence under section 1170, 

subdivision (d). The trial court denied the motion on the 

following grounds: the motion was not timely filed within 120 

days of sentencing; Senate Bill No. 620 did not create an 

independent right to resentencing; Djissa failed to identify 

another law that entitled him to resentencing; and Djissa waived 

any such claim by entering into a plea agreement to resolve his 

case.

Djissa timely appealed the trial court’s denial of his motion. 

We appointed counsel for Djissa, who filed a brief raising no

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

issues and requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in 

People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. We sent a letter to 

Djissa advising that he could submit a supplemental brief raising 

any issues he wanted us to consider, and directing counsel to 

send the record and opening brief to Djissa. In response, Djissa 

timely filed a supplemental brief.

DISCUSSION

Djissa argues that he is entitled to relief pursuant to 

Senate Bill No. 620, which authorizes the trial court to exercise 

its discretion to strike or dismiss the personal use enhancement 

imposed under section 12022.5. He seeks an order that the trial 

court apply this amendment and resentence him.

Senate Bill No. 620 amended section 12022.5 to authorize a 

trial court to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement “at the 

time of sentencing.” (§ 12022.5, subd. (c).) The amendment was 

effective as of January 1, 2018, well before Djissa entered his plea 

and was sentenced in July 2019. (People v. Hurlic (2018) 25 

Cal.App.5th 50, 54.) Djissa does not cite a legal basis for the trial

court to consider the application of the amendment in postconviction proceedings. His reliance on Hurlic is misplaced, as 

the facts and circumstances of that case have no application here. 

(See id. at p. 53 [considering appeal by the defendant who 

pleaded no contest prior to the enactment of Senate Bill 

No. 620].) Moreover, his no contest plea forecloses review of his 

sentence on the grounds he raises here. (See § 1237.5, subd. (a)

[following entry of a plea of guilty or no contest, no appeal shall 

be taken unless the defendant shows “reasonable constitutional, 

jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the 

proceedings”]; People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 [a

defendant generally may not take an appeal following entry of a 
4

plea of guilty or no contest “except on grounds going to the 

legality of the proceedings, including the validity of his plea”].)

There are no facts in the record to suggest that the trial 

court or counsel concluded that the amendment to section 

12022.5 was not applicable to Djissa’s case, or that Djissa was so 

advised.

We also note that to the extent that Djissa’s request for 

relief can be construed as a motion to recall the sentence, a trial 

court may recall a sentence on its own motion within 120 days of 

sentencing. (§ 1170, subd. (d)(1).) Section 1170, subdivision (d), 

does not authorize a defendant to initiate a sentence recall 

proceeding in the trial court. (People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 

1155, 1165.) Thus, Djissa’s motion before the trial court was both 

untimely and procedurally improper. 

We are satisfied that Djissa’s counsel has fulfilled his 

responsibilities (see People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023,

1038-1039, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, S264278), and conclude 

that the appeal raises no arguable issues.
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s April 20, 2020, order denying Djissa’s 

motion to recall his sentence under section 1170, subdivision (d) 

is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

FEDERMAN, J.*

We concur:

ROTHSCHILD, P. J.

CHANEY, J.

* Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court, 

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of 

the California Constitution.