Court Opinion

ID: 9402346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-15 17:05:00.81982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:59.194204
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/15/23 P. v. Washington CA1/5

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur-
poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                         FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                    DIVISION FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
            Plaintiff and Respondent,                             A166995
 v.
 ISAIAH N. WASHINGTON,                                            (Alameda County Super. Ct. No.
            Defendant and Appellant.                              H53084A)

                             MEMORANDUM OPINION1

      Isaiah N. Washington appeals from an order denying his
post-judgment motion to vacate a restitution fine and certain
assessments. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no
issues, but seeking our discretionary independent review of the
record, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216,
230, 232. We conclude the challenged order is not appealable and
dismiss Washington’s appeal.

     In 2015, a jury convicted Washington of two counts of first
degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),2 one count of
attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), and one

       We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion
        1

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration,
standard 8.1.

        2   All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code.
                                                1
count of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021.1). For
each count of murder, the jury found true the special
circumstance that Washington committed the murder while
engaged in the commission of robbery within the meaning of
section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A). The jury also found true the
special circumstance allegation that Washington committed
multiple murders within the meaning of section 190.2,
subdivision (a)(3).

       The trial court sentenced Washington to prison for two
terms of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court also
imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd.
(b)), a $120 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373),
and a $160 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8).
On direct appeal, Washington did not challenge the imposed
assessments or restitution fine and this Division affirmed the
judgment against him. (People v. Washington (Nov. 9, 2018,
A146433) [nonpub. opn.].)3

       About four years later, Washington (acting in propria
persona) filed a motion, which asked the trial court to vacate or
reduce, pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157,
the restitution fine, court operations assessment, and conviction
assessment. Washington argued that imposition of the
restitution fine, conviction assessment, and court operations
assessment violated due process because the trial court made no
determination of his ability to pay. The trial court denied
Washington’s motion, concluding that, once the judgment was
final, it lacked jurisdiction to reduce or vacate the restitution fine
or assessments.

      After Washington’s appointed counsel filed a brief raising
no issues, we informed Washington of his right to file a

      3  On our own motion, we take judicial notice of the record
filed in Washington’s direct appeal (A146433). (See Evid. Code
§§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
                                  2
supplemental brief and that we would dismiss the appeal as
abandoned if no letter or brief was filed. (See People v.
Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232.) Washington
submitted a letter in which he requested the appointment of new
appellate counsel and argued that the restitution fine should be
vacated because its imposition (despite his inability to pay)
constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We do not reach the
merits of Washington’s arguments because the order he appeals
from is not appealable.

      A criminal defendant has the statutory right to appeal
“from a final judgment of conviction.” (§ 1237, subd. (a).) A
defendant may also appeal “[f]rom any order made after
judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the party.” (§ 1237,
subd. (b), italics added.)

      Generally, a trial court loses jurisdiction to modify or
vacate a defendant’s sentence after its execution begins. (People
v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344.) Although there are
exceptions to this rule, none of them apply here. (See People v.
Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1085, disapproved on another
ground by In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129-1130; People v.
Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 327.)

      Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reduce or
vacate Washington’s restitution fine and assessments years after
the judgment had become final, the order denying his motion is
not appealable pursuant to section 1237, subdivision (b). (People
v. Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1084-1085, 1088; People v.
Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205-1208, disapproved on
another ground by In re G.C., supra, 8 Cal.5th at pp. 1129-1130.)
We must dismiss Washington’s appeal.

                           DISPOSITION

      The appeal is dismissed.

                                 3
                                   ______________________
                                   BURNS, J.

We concur:

____________________________
JACKSON, P.J.

____________________________
SIMONS, J.

A166995

                               4