Court Opinion

ID: 9913062
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-26 20:02:03.90251+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:06:57.151346
License: Public Domain

Filed 12/26/23 P. v. Yeron 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B329758
                                                         (Super. Ct. No. 2011039774)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Ventura County)

 v.

 JEREMY CLAUDIO YERON,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Jeremy Claudio Yeron appeals the order of the trial court
denying his petition for recall and resentencing. (Pen. Code, §§
1170, 1171, 1172; Assem. Bill No. 1540 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)
(AB 1540).)1 We appointed counsel to represent appellant on
appeal. After an examination 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 his own supplemental brief, in

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
propria persona. Because the trial court had no jurisdiction to
modify appellant’s sentence, the order denying his petition was
not an appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.
                       Procedural Background
       In 2014, pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pleaded
guilty to two counts of a violation of section 288, subdivision (a),
lewd and lascivious acts on a minor under the age of 14 years
(counts 1 and 4). Appellant admitted the special allegations,
including substantial sexual conduct (§ 1203.066, subd. (a)(8),
counts 1 and 4), and lewd and lascivious acts against more than
one victim (§ 667.61, subds. (b), (e)(4), count 1).
       The trial court sentenced appellant to an indeterminate
sentence of 15 years to life on count 1, with a consecutive
determinate sentence of the low term of three years on count 4.
                              Discussion
       Because the instant appeal is from an order denying
postconviction relief rather than a first appeal as of right from a
criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record 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 pp. 221-
222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
[independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to
first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 503.) However, he is entitled to appellate consideration of
any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo,
at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       Citing AB 1540 and section 1172.75, appellant contends in
his supplemental brief that the superior court violated his due
process rights when it failed to conduct a hearing, appoint

                                 2
counsel, or provide an opportunity for him to address the trial
court regarding its decision. He also contends this court is
“obligated to issue an order to show cause” to allow him to
present evidence regarding disparity of sentences. These
contentions are meritless.
       Appellant was not entitled to a hearing or appointment of
counsel because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify his
sentence in the first instance. (People v. Magana (2021) 63
Cal.App.5th 1120, 1125-1126 (Magana).) As the trial court
explained in its written order denying the petition, “[m]ore than
120 days have elapsed since the sentence was imposed and
[appellant] is not one of the enumerated persons or entities
authorized to initiate a petition for recall and resentencing.” (See
§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).)
       Appellant was also not entitled to relief pursuant to section
1172.75 because he was not convicted of any sentence
enhancement pursuant to subdivision (b) of section 667.5.
Moreover, section 1172.75 “‘simply does not contemplate
resentencing relief initiated by any individual defendant’s
petition or motion.’” (People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265,
268, quoting People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 384.)
       Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to modify
appellant’s sentence, its order denying the request for
resentencing could not, and does not, affect his substantial rights
and was not an appealable order. (See Magana, supra, 63
Cal.App.5th at pp. 1127-1128; People v. Hodges (2023) 92
Cal.App.5th 186, 190.)

                                 3
                          Disposition
     The appeal is dismissed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                        YEGAN, J.

We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                              4
                 Catherine M. Voelker, Judge
              Superior Court County of Ventura
               ______________________________

     Susan S. Bauguess, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance by Respondent.