Court Opinion

ID: 9904748
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-27 19:03:32.406169+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:19.013936
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/27/23 P. v. Watts 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097775

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                        (Super. Ct. Nos.
                                                                                 STK-CR-FE-2012-0006820,
           v.                                                                          SF119582A)

 SHEMICK FERRER WATTS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Shemick Ferrer Watts appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion,
filed after his judgment was final, for relief under the California Racial Justice Act of
2020 (Stats. 2020, ch. 317) (the Racial Justice Act). Because the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant’s motion, the order denying that motion is
nonappealable and the appeal from that order must be dismissed.
                         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         As relevant here, in 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of premeditated attempted
murder and further found multiple enhancements true. The trial court sentenced

                                                             1
defendant to 23 years in prison. We affirmed the judgment (People v. Watts (Nov. 20,
2014, C073627) [nonpub. opn.]) and the case became final when the remittitur issued on
January 29, 2015. Recently, on November 7, 2022, defendant moved the trial court for
resentencing under the Racial Justice Act, alleging that the prosecutor was biased against
him because he was African-American. The trial court denied the motion because, at the
time, the Racial Justice Act did not apply retroactively. Defendant timely appealed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends that the trial court’s denial of his motion should be vacated
and the matter remanded because the Racial Justice Act has now been amended to apply
retroactively. The People argue that this appeal should be dismissed because the trial
court’s denial was not an appealable order. The People have the better argument.
       “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 (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634, review denied July 27,
2022.) An exception to this rule is when the Legislature has created “specific statutory
avenues for incarcerated defendants to seek resentencing in particular cases.” (Id. at
p. 637.) But this exception does not apply here. Effective January 1, 2021, the Racial
Justice Act, which is codified in several statutes (Pen. Code, §§ 745, 1473, subd. (f),
1473.7, subd. (a)(3)), states that “[t]he state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction
or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin”
(§ 745, subd. (a), added by Stats. 2020, ch. 317, § 3.5). Section 745, subdivision (b)
provides that a “defendant may file a motion in the trial court or, if judgment has been
imposed, may file a petition for writ of habeas corpus or a motion under [s]ection 1473.7
in a court of competent jurisdiction, alleging a violation of” the Racial Justice Act.
Defendant’s motion was neither a petition for a writ of habeas corpus nor a motion under
section 1473.7, and therefore was not authorized under the Racial Justice Act.

                                              2
       The trial court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion. “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, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634; see also
People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135 [“Because the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to modify [the] defendant’s sentence, denial of his motion to modify his
sentence could not have affected his substantial rights”].) Accordingly, we must dismiss
defendant’s appeal.
                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                  /s/
                                                  ROBIE, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/s/
MAURO, J.

/s/
KRAUSE, J.

                                              3