Court Opinion

ID: 9405501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-28 18:03:56.042134+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:22.536276
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/28/23 P. v. Johnson 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   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B325082
                                                            (Super. Ct. No. F439849)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                            (San Luis Obispo County)

 v.

 NATHANIEL JOHNSON, JR.,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Nathaniel Johnson, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s order
denying his petition and motion to recall his sentence and
resentence him pursuant to newly enacted legislation. We
appointed counsel to represent him 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 a supplemental brief, in propria persona. We will
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
                      Procedural Background1
        In 2010, appellant was convicted by jury of three counts of
robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)2, and one count of first degree
residential burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a)). On two of the
robbery counts, the jury found true an allegation that appellant
had personally used a deadly weapon (a knife). (§ 12022, subd.
(b)(1).) The trial court found true allegations of one prior serious
felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), one prior prison term (§
667.5, subd. (b)), and one prior serious or violent felony conviction
within the meaning of California’s “Three Strikes” law. (§§
1170.12, subds. (a)-(d); 667, subds. (b)-(i).) Appellant was
sentenced to state prison for 24 years, 8 months.
       We affirmed the conviction but modified appellant’s
sentence. (People v. Johnson, supra, B223724.)
       In June 2022, appellant filed a petition, in propria persona,
to recall his sentence pursuant to Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.), which modified various sentencing provisions. The
trial court appointed defense counsel who filed a motion to
dismiss the enhancements imposed by the sentencing court. The
People filed an opposition to defense counsel’s motion and argued
that the trial court had no jurisdiction to recall appellant’s
sentence because his case was final prior to the enactment of the
new legislation and none of the requirements allowing
jurisdiction for resentencing had been met.

      1  The following procedural background is drawn from this
court’s decision in appellant’s direct appeal from his conviction.
(People v. Johnson (May 16, 2011, B223724) [nonpub. opn.].)

      2   All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                  2
       The trial court agreed with the People and denied both the
petition and motion because appellant was not eligible for the
requested relief as a matter of law.
       That should have ended this litigation. (See People v.
Hodges (June 2, 2023, B323199) ___Cal.App.5th ___, [2023
Cal.App.LEXIS 433, *2, *5] (Hodges).) As we shall explain, we
have no jurisdiction to entertain appellant’s appeal from the
denial of his postjudgment, nonstatutory request for relief.
                              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 our consideration of any
contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo, at
p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       In his supplemental brief, appellant contends the trial
court’s order amending the abstract of judgment “stayed” the one-
year prior prison term enhancement rather than “striking” it, as
ordered in our opinion on appeal. According to appellant, the
“stayed” sentence could be “resurrected by the operation of law,”
which would be contrary to legislative intent. Consequently, he
contends we must remand the matter for resentencing
whereupon he will be entitled to the ameliorative benefits of the
changes in the law. Appellant is mistaken.

                                 3
       First, we have no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from
the summary denial of appellant’s postjudgment, nonstatutory
petition and motion. The right to appeal is statutory and a
judgment or order is not appealable unless expressly authorized
by statute. (Hodges, supra, ___Cal.App.5th ___, [2023
Cal.App.LEXIS 433, *5].) An order made after judgment
affecting a defendant’s substantial rights is appealable. (§ 1237,
subd. (b).)
       Here, however, the trial court had no jurisdiction to
entertain appellant’s requests for sentencing relief approximately
12 years after entry of judgment. “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 (King),
quoting People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084.)
Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant
appellant’s request, its order could not, and does not, affect his
substantial rights. Accordingly, the trial court’s order is not
appealable pursuant to section 1237, subdivision (b). (Hodges,
supra, ___Cal.App.5th ___, [2023 Cal.App.LEXIS 433, *5]; King,
at p. 634.)
       Second, we recognize that the abstract of judgment does
not correctly reflect the modified judgment on appeal, wherein we
ordered the one-year prior prison term enhancement imposed
pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) to be stricken. (People
v. Johnson, supra, B223724.) Because we lack jurisdiction to
correct the clerical error on this direct appeal, this issue is best
raised in the trial court through a petition for writ of habeas
corpus. “If a modification does not make a substantive change to
a sentence but simply corrects a clerical error, the trial court has

                                 4
the inherent power to correct its own records at any time. (King,
supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 637.)
                           Disposition
      The appeal is dismissed.
      NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                                YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                5
                       Timothy S. Covello
            Superior Court County of San Luis Obispo
                ______________________________
     Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.