1 Filed 2/24/15 P. v. Hernandez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. RAUL ALVAREZ HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. C077270 (Super. Ct. No. 96F06256)

Defendant Raul Alvarez Hernandez appe als from an order denying a motion to
recall his so-called “three strikes” sentence of 25 years to life, brought pursuant to the provisions of the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012 (the Act), codified at Penal Code
section 1170.126. 1 (CT 2-5, 6-7, 9) (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595.) Defendant’s petition to recall his senten ce and for resentencing was denied upon determination that he was not eligible for relief under the Act because he had sustained a

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.2 prior conviction for first degree murder. (S ee §§ 667, subd. (e)(2 )(C)(iv)(IV), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iv)(IV), 1170.126, subd. (e)(3).) (CT 6-7) Counsel was appointed to represent de fendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting this court to review the
record and determine whether there ar e any arguable issues on appeal. ( People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel advised defe ndant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. Defendant timely filed a s upplemental brief by which he first argues that the “will of the People” is not furthered by deeming defendant not eligible for relief under the Act
when the commitment offense is “simple possession of a controlled substance without more.” (Supp AOB 1) Howeve r, “[t]o determine the intent of legislation, we first consult the words themselves, giving them their usual and ordinary meaning. [Citations.] When ‘ “statutory language is . . . cl ear and unambiguous there is no need for construction, and courts should not indulge in it.” ’ [Citation.] The plain meaning of words in a statute may be disregarded only when the meaning is ‘ “repugnant to the general purview of the act,” or for some othe r compelling reason. . . .’ [Citation.] These principles apply as much to initiative statutes as to those enacted by the Legislature. [Citation.]” ( DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, 601; accord, People v.
Robinson (2010) 47 Cal.4th 1104, 1138.) The Act expressly and unambiguously precludes recall of sentence and resentencing if defendant has a prior conviction for any homicide offense. (§§ 667, subd. (e)(2)(C )(iv)(IV), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)(iv)(IV), 1170.126, subd. (e)(3).) Hence, defendant’s prior convicti on for first degree murder (CT 3, 6), renders him ineligible for resentencing without rega rd to the severity of the
commitment offense. Otherwise, defendant’s supplemental brie f presents challenges to the validity and constitutionality of the commitment judgment. (Supp. AOB 1-2) “ ‘It is settled that the right of appeal is statutory a nd that a judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly3 made so by statute.’ [Citations.]” ( People v. Meza (2012) 54 Cal.4th 146, 152.) Appeal of the order denying relief under the Act is au thorized by subdivision (b) of section 1237, as an order made after judgment, affecti ng the substantial rights of defendant. ( Teal v. Superior Court, supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 601.) Howe ver, that statutorily conferred appellate jurisdiction is limited to review of the decision to deny relief under the Act. To convert that limited grant of jurisdiction to effectuate appellate review of the commitment judgment would in substance allow a belate d motion to vacate that judgment, thereby violating the proscription on so “bypass[ing] or duplicat[i ng] appeal from the judgment itself.’ [Citation.]” ( People v. Totari (2002) 28 Cal.4th 876, 882.) Defendant’s challenges to the commitment judgment are not cognizable on this appeal of the order denying relief under the Act. Having undertaken an examination of th e entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a dispositi on more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSITION The judgment (order) is affirmed.

RAYE , P. J.

We concur:

BLEASE , J.

NICHOLSON , J.