Filed 1/29/21 P. v. Combs CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KIJOHN LARENZ COMBS,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B306336

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. GA098220)

THE COURT:

In 2016, defendant Kijohn Larenz Combs was convicted, 

pursuant to a plea of no contest, of second degree robbery. (Pen. 

Code, § 212.5, subd. (c).)1 He admitted to the personal use of a 

firearm. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced 

defendant to 12 years in state prison, comprised of two years for 

the robbery and 10 years for the firearm enhancement.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code 

unless otherwise indicated.
2

In May 2020, defendant filed a postjudgment motion to 

modify his sentence by striking the firearm enhancement. He 

argued that, when his plea was entered in 2016, he did not know 

that future laws—specifically Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 

Reg. Sess.) (SB 620)2 and Assembly Bill No. 1618 (2019-2020 Reg. 

Sess.) (AB 1618)3—would be enacted that could lessen his 

punishment.

The trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion on the 

ground that SB 620 does not apply to criminal cases, like 

defendant’s, that were already final on the law’s January 1, 2018, 

effective date. Defendant appealed.

Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in 

connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record, counsel 

filed a brief raising no issues and asking this court to follow the 

procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 

496. On October 19, 2020, Defendant filed a supplemental brief.

An order made after judgment is appealable only if it 

affects a defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) If a 

trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief requested by a 

2 SB 620, effective January 1, 2018, amended “sections 

12022.5 and 12022.53, which set forth firearm enhancements, so 

that the [trial] court may now, in its discretion, strike the 

enhancements in the interests of justice.” (People v. Phung

(2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 741, 762–763.)

3 AB 1618, effective January 1, 2020, added section 1016.8. 

That section provides, in part: “A provision of a plea bargain that 

requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of 

legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other 

changes in the law that may retroactively apply after the date of 

the plea is void as against public policy.” (§ 1016.8, subd. (b).)
3

defendant, then an order denying the request does not affect the 

defendant’s substantial rights within the meaning of 

section 1237, subdivision (b). (People v. Hernandez (2019) 

34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326 (Hernandez).)

SB 620 and section 1016.8 apply retroactively only to 

nonfinal judgments. (Hernandez, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at p. 326 

[SB 620]; People v. Barton (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159 

[section 1016.8].) Because defendant’s sentence was final before 

SB 620 and section 1016.8 were enacted, the trial court lacked 

jurisdiction to grant his motion to modify his sentence under 

those laws. (See People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 

135.) Thus, the denial of the motion did not affect defendant’s 

substantial rights. (Ibid.) As a result, the trial court’s order is 

not appealable, and the appeal must be dismissed. (Ibid.)

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________

LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. HOFFSTADT, J.