Court Opinion

ID: 9865760
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 20:04:05.94957+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:03.750540
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/25/23 P. v. Thompson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                    (San Joaquin)
                                                            ----

THE PEOPLE,                                                                                  C097372

                   Plaintiff and Respondent,                                         (Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                                 STKCRCNV19980016794,
         v.                                                                            SP062695C)

BERTRAND THOMPSON,

                   Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Bertrand Thompson asked this court to review
the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) In their brief, counsel noted there “may be a question of
the appealability of the matter being appealed.” We agree and conclude defendant has
appealed from a nonappealable order. We will dismiss the appeal accordingly.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND1
       In August 2019, defendant appealed from the trial court’s denial of his Penal Code
section 1172.6 petition for resentencing (the resentencing appeal). (People v. Thompson
(Dec. 16, 2020, C090225) [nonpub. opn.].) This court affirmed that order in December
2020. (Ibid.) Defendant then petitioned the Supreme Court for review; review was
granted in March 2021, and further action was deferred pending consideration and
disposition of related issues in People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 and People v.
Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698.
       In September 2022, while review of our decision in the resentencing appeal was
pending in the Supreme Court, defendant filed an ex parte motion to stay and/or vacate
specified fines and fees pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. In
October 2022, the trial court denied that motion.
       On November 1, 2022, this court filed an opinion on transfer in the resentencing
appeal; we reversed the trial court’s order and remanded the matter for further
proceedings under section 1172.6. (People v. Thompson (Nov. 1, 2022, C090225)
[nonpub. opn.].)
       On November 16, 2022, defendant filed the notice of appeal in this matter
challenging the trial court’s October 2022 order denying the ex parte motion to stay
and/or vacate specified fines and fees. Remittitur in the resentencing appeal issued in
January 2023.
                                       DISCUSSION
       The general rule is that the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of
the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the
remittitur, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over anything affecting the

1 On the court’s own motion, we incorporate by reference the record on appeal in
defendant’s prior appeal, case No. C090225.

                                              2
judgment. (See People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1064; see also People v. Alanis
(2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472.) Moreover, “[i]f the trial court does not have
jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or modify a sentence, an order denying such a
motion is nonappealable, and any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.” (People
v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084.)
       Defendant filed his ex parte motion to vacate and/or stay specified fines and fees
while the resentencing appeal was still pending. Accordingly, the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s motion. (See People v. Flores, supra, 30 Cal.4th at
p. 1064.) The trial court nevertheless denied the motion; defendant appeals from that
order. That order, however, is nonappealable and the appeal must be dismissed.
(See People v. Torres, supra, 44 Cal.App.5th at p. 1084.)
                                     DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 BOULWARE EURIE, J.

We concur:

   /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

    /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                             3