Court Opinion

ID: 9889886
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-11 18:03:42.962598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.169668
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/11/23 P. v. Niblett CA4/2

                      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                   FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      E081383

 v.                                                                      (Super.Ct.No. RIF1105943)

 SHADEED DWIGHT NIBLETT,                                                 OPINION

          Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Dismissed.

         Alan Siraco, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                                             1
       On the court’s own motion, the appeal filed in the superior court on May 23, 2023,

from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s postjudgment, nonstatutory motion for

sentence modification based on changes in the law “pursuant to section(s) 186.22,

12022.53 and/or 12022.5” is DISMISSED because it does not affect defendant’s

substantial rights. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b).) The trial court lacked jurisdiction to

modify defendant’s sentence. (See People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719,

1725.) Therefore, denial of the motion to modify defendant’s sentence could not have

affected his substantial rights. (Id. at p. 1726.) Accordingly, the order denying

defendant’s motion for sentence modification is not an appealable order, and the appeal

must be dismissed. (See People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

                                      DISPOSITION

       The appeal is dismissed.

       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                                                FIELDS
                                                                                             J.
We concur:

MILLER
                 Acting P.J.

MENETREZ
                           J.

                                             2