Court Opinion

ID: 9555646
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-14 17:03:53.659936+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:39:15.753101
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/14/23 P. v. Grech 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                                                     (Sacramento)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097206

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 17FE019588)

           v.

 SONNY LOREN GRECH,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Sonny Loren Grech asks this court to review the
record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

                                                 BACKGROUND
         On August 9, 2017, defendant had methamphetamine and a loaded, operable .380-
caliber handgun. Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine while
armed and admitted a prior serious felony conviction allegation. On April 30, 2019, the
trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison.

                                                             1
       On October 7, 2022, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Senate
Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 483) and Penal Code
section 1172.75.1 The trial court denied the motion and defendant appealed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and
asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable
issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We do not have jurisdiction
to consider this appeal. (People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.)
       “The right to appeal is entirely statutory . . . .” (People v. Clark (2021)
67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254.) “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.’ ” (People v, King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634.) “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.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Section 1172.75 is an exception to the general rule that a court lacks jurisdiction to
modify a defendant’s sentence after execution of the sentence has begun. Senate Bill
No. 483 added what is now section 1172.75 to the Penal Code. Subdivision (a) of that
section declares: “Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020,
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a
prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of
section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.”

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Defendant actually
filed his motion pursuant to former section 1171.1, which was added by Senate Bill
No. 483. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.) The Legislature renumbered section 1171.1 as
section 1172.75 with no substantive changes. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.)

                                              2
       Section 1172.75 includes a procedural remedy whereby the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the correctional
administrator of each county must identify individuals serving a term including an
enhancement described in section 1172.75, subdivision (a) and provide the identity of
those individuals to the sentencing court. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Then the court is
required to recall and resentence those identified individuals. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)
       “Under this express procedure, any review and verification by the court in advance
of resentencing is only triggered by receipt of the necessary information from the CDCR
Secretary or a county correctional administrator, not by any individual defendant.
[Citation.] Thus, section 1172.75 simply does not contemplate resentencing relief
initiated by any individual defendant’s petition or motion.” (People v. Burgess (2022)
86 Cal.App.5th 375, 384.) A defendant who files a petition without statutory permission
does not vest the sentencing court with jurisdiction to resentence. (See People v.
Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)
       Here, the trial court was without jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion, so
the court’s order denying that motion is not an appealable order. (People v. King, supra,
77 Cal.App.5th at pp. 634, 639, 641; accord, Burgess, at pp. 381-382.) And, because the
trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s motion, the denial of the motion could
not have affected defendant’s substantial rights. (See § 1237, subd. (b).)
       Finally, we note that defendant’s sentence does not include a section 667.5, former
subdivision (b) enhancement invalidated by section 1172.75, subdivision (a).

                                             3
                                 DISPOSITION
      The appeal is dismissed.

                                          MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

ROBIE, Acting P. J.

DUARTE, J.

                                      4