1

Filed 3/19/21 P. v. Lyons CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or 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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

OMA LYONS,

Defendant and Appellant.

A160982

(Alameda County Super. Ct.

No. 173660A / HC173660A1)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

In this appeal from a postjudgment order pursuant to People v. Serrano

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, Oma Lyons, who is currently serving a 16-year 

sentence for a voluntary manslaughter conviction (Pen. Code, § 192, 

subd. (a)) with a firearm use enhancement (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)), 

filed a pro se petition for recall of his sentence and for resentencing. Citing 

Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), as authority for the motion, Lyons 

requested that the court exercise discretion conferred by a 2018 amendment 

to Penal Code section 1385 allowing it to strike the firearm use enhancement. 

(See Sen. Bill No. 620 (2017–2018 Reg. Sess.) § 1 (Senate Bill 620).)

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion because it raises no 

substantial issue of fact or law. (Cal. Stds. Jud. Admin., § 8.1.)
2

The effective date of Senate Bill 620 was January 1, 2018. (People v.

Harris (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 657, 659.) Lyons was sentenced on January 31, 

2018, pursuant to an agreed disposition. His 16-year term of imprisonment 

has two components, a base term consisting of the middle term of six years 

for the manslaughter conviction, and a consecutive ten years for the firearm 

enhancement. The sentencing judge, Hon. James Cramer, was vested with 

discretion to strike the firearms enhancement at the time of sentencing, but 

declined to exercise it, imposing a determinate term in accord with the plea 

bargain.

Lyons sought recall of his sentence and resentencing on July 14, 2020,

after receiving a copy of a letter dated May 22, 2020, that Cathy Heifner, a

case analyst at the California Department of Corrections (CDC), sent to 

Judge Cramer. In her letter, Heifner requested clarification of a discrepancy 

in the credits granted to Lyons as shown in the Amended Abstract of 

Judgment, on the one hand, and a Corrected Minute Order, on the other.

Judge Morris Jacobson denied Lyons’s motion for recall of his sentence 

and for resentencing in an order entered August 24, 2020. Judge Jacobson 

noted that Lyons made no showing that his sentence was unlawful or

unauthorized. In the absence of such a showing, Judge Jacobson ruled, the 

court was without jurisdiction to entertain Lyons’s petition because it was 

unrelated to any proceeding then pending (People v. Picklesimer (2010) 

48 Cal.4th 330, 337) and because more than 120 days had passed since the 

imposition of sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (d)(1)).

Judge Jacobson stated, in addition, that there was no reason to strike 

the firearms enhancement, since Judge Cramer was vested with discretion to 

strike the enhancement at the time sentence was imposed but chose to follow

the agreed terms of the negotiated disposition. He also noted that in 2019 
3

Lyons filed a petition for habeas corpus requesting that the firearms 

enhancement be stricken as well as vacatur of a prior marijuana conviction

pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11361.9 (added by Stats. 2018, 

ch. 993, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2019).2 That habeas petition was denied, and Judge 

Jacobson declined to revisit the issues raised there. He also explained that 

the language of Penal Code section 1170.1, subdivision (a), which Lyons

purported to rely upon, does not actually state what Lyons claimed it says,

and in any event does not authorize the relief Lyons requested.

Having denied Lyons’s petition for recall of his sentence and for 

resentencing, Judge Jacobson went on to provide the clarification requested 

by the CDC and ordered that the Amended Abstract of Judgment and the 

Corrected Minute Order be corrected in accordance with the clarification.

Lyons timely appealed Judge Jacobson’s order denying his motion for 

recall and resentencing. His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief 

summarizing the pertinent facts and procedural history, reporting that there 

are no arguable issues to pursue on appeal, declaring that Lyons has been 

advised that he may file a supplemental submission should he wish to do so, 

and requesting that we exercise our discretion to undertake an independent 

2 “On or before July 1, 2019, the Department of Justice shall review the 

records in the state summary criminal history information database and 

shall identify past convictions that are potentially eligible for recall or 

dismissal of sentence, dismissal and sealing, or redesignation pursuant to 

Section 11361.8. The department shall notify the prosecution of all cases in 

their jurisdiction that are eligible for recall or dismissal of sentence, 

dismissal and sealing, or redesignation.” (Health & Saf. Code, § 11361.9, 

subd. (a).) Because the marijuana conviction in question was imposed in San 

Joaquin County, the March 7, 2019 order denying Lyons’s habeas petition 

ruled that the Alameda County Superior Court was without jurisdiction to 

grant relief.
4

review of the record pursuant to People v. Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th 

496.

Lyons filed a pro se supplemental brief on February 4, 2021, arguing 

that we should treat this appeal as a petition for habeas corpus, that Judge 

Cramer “could have relied on any number of aggravating circumstances in 

imposing the upper term,” and that if he did so the judicial determination of

an aggravating circumstance violated his Sixth Amendment rights under 

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270. (See People v. Sandoval

(2007) 41 Cal.4th 825, 836.) Lyons also contends, without support in the 

record, that Judge Cramer was unaware of the then very recent enactment of 

Senate Bill 620 at the time of sentencing and failed to exercise the discretion 

that legislation conferred upon him.

We see no merit in the arguments advanced in Lyons’s supplemental 

brief. Under circumstances where Judge Cramer was presented with an 

agreed lawful sentence to a specific term of years, it appears to us that he

accepted the parties’ agreement and had no occasion to exercise discretion in 

choosing a term from the sentencing triad applicable to Lyons’s offense or to 

engage in any fact-finding in support of such a choice. We must presume that 

Judge Cramer knew the law––which of course included newly enacted Senate 

Bill 620––and that he applied it when he approved the plea agreement. 

Absent evidence in the record of conviction affirmatively showing that Judge 

Cramer failed to appreciate that he had the discretion to strike the weapons 

use enhancement and reject the parties’ agreement, we decline to find error.

We have undertaken the requested independent review of the record, 

we see no error, and we conclude there are no issues that are worthy of full 

briefing on appeal.
5

DISPOSITION

The trial court’s postjudgment order filed August 24, 2020 is affirmed.

STREETER, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

TUCHER, J.

BROWN, J.