Court Opinion

ID: 9945012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-26 20:02:37.88508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:19.580466
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/26/24 P. v. Alford CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                2d Crim. No. B330261
                                                        (Super. Ct. No. 20F-02462-A)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (San Luis Obispo County)

 v.

 MARIO S. ALFORD,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Mario S. Alford appeals from the trial court’s postjudgment
order denying his motion in propria persona for recall and
resentencing. (Pen. Code, §§ 1172.1, 1385).1 We appointed
counsel to represent appellant on appeal. After an examination

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

      Appellant filed his petition pursuant to former section
1170.03. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.03 was
renumbered as section 1172.1 without substantive changes.
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 9.) We cite to section 1172.1.
of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed a
supplemental brief. Because appellant has appealed from a
nonappealable order, we dismiss the appeal.
                      Procedural Background2
       A jury convicted appellant of robbery (§ 211) and found true
the allegation that he personally used a firearm (§ 12022.53,
subd. (b)). The trial court found true the allegations that he had
multiple serious prior convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and two
“strike” convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e), 1170.12, subds. (b),
(c).) It sentenced him to 25 years to life in state prison for
robbery as a third striker; plus 10 years for the firearm
enhancement; plus 10 years for two prior serious felony
convictions.
       We affirmed appellant’s conviction in a nonpublished
opinion. (People v. Alford, supra, B312837).)
       In December 2022, appellant filed a motion for
resentencing asking the trial court to strike or dismiss his section
667, subdivision (a) priors and the section 12022.53, subdivision
(b) enhancement pursuant to section 1385. After appointing
counsel and reviewing the moving papers, the trial court denied
the motion.
                              Discussion
       Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues
in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction,
appellant is not entitled to our independent review of the record

      2 The following procedural facts are taken from our opinion
on direct appeal, People v. Alford (July 26, 2022, B312837)
[nonpub. opn.].

                                 2
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, or its federal
constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S.
738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) He is, however,
entitled to appellate consideration of any contentions raised in
his supplemental brief. (Id. at p. 232.) But first, we address the
issue of appealability.
        “The general rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and
execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have
jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.’ [Citations.] And
‘[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. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.)
        Here, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify
appellant’s sentence on his own motion. (See § 1172.1, subd.
(a)(1); People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1724-1726.)
Therefore, the denial of appellant’s motion could not have
affected his substantial rights and is not an appealable order.
(See Chlad, at p. 1726; People v. Hodges (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th
186, 190.)
        In his supplemental brief, appellant contends his sentence
is invalid because the trial court did not apply section 213, which
provides allowable base terms of two, three, or five years for
second degree robbery. (Id., subd. (a)(2).) Instead, he contends,
his sentence is “all enhancements.” Appellant also contends the
enhancements should be stricken or dismissed pursuant to
section 1385 as amended by Senate Bill No.’s 81 and 1393.
Appellant’s contentions are meritless.
        First, appellant was properly sentenced pursuant to the
“Three Strikes” law, which creates an alternative sentencing

                                 3
scheme and is not an enhancement. (People v. Superior Court
(Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497, 527.)
      Second, Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which
amended section 1385 to specify factors that the trial court must
consider when deciding whether to strike enhancements from a
defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice, is inapplicable
here because it became effective after appellant was sentenced in
May 2021. (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1, enacting § 1385, subd. (c)(7)
[“This subdivision shall apply to all sentencings occurring after
January 1, 2022”].)
      Third, resentencing is not required by Senate Bill No. 1393
(2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, §§ 1, 2). Senate Bill
No. 1393, effective January 1, 2019, amended sections 667,
subdivision (a) and 1385, subdivision (b) to allow a court to
exercise its discretion to strike or dismiss a prior serious felony
conviction for sentencing purposes. However, nothing in the
record suggests the trial court was unaware of its discretion to
strike or dismiss appellant’s section 667, subdivision (a) priors
when it imposed sentence. Appellant is not entitled to
resentencing.
                              Disposition
      The appeal is dismissed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                                 YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                 4
                    Michael Duffy, Judge
          Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
              ______________________________

      Richard B. Lennon, David Andreasen, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Respondent.