Court Opinion

ID: 9894401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-01 18:04:18.390194+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:40.469355
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/1/23 P. v. Savary C2/8
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 EIGHT

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B325727

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. Nos. KA094210,
         v.                                                     KA083613

KEFFIER HORACE SAVARY,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles
County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

      John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.

         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                                    ——————————
      Pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, we
review this appeal from orders denying a motion for return of
property, a Pitchess motion, a motion to allow family visitation, a
motion to reduce the restitution fine, a petition to recall sentence,
a motion for new trial or to reduce the murder to manslaughter, a
motion for a new trial on the conspiracy count, and a motion for
release from custody due to the Covid pandemic. We dismiss the
appeal.
                         BACKGROUND
       In 2012, a jury convicted appellant Keffier Horace Savary
of first degree murder with personal use and discharge of a
firearm in case No. KA083613. A second jury also convicted him
of dissuading a witness and conspiracy to commit murder in case
No. KA094210. On February 28, 2013, Savary was sentenced on
both cases to an overall term of 77 years-to-life in prison: 25 years
for murder; 25 years for the firearm enhancement; 25 years for
conspiracy to commit murder; and 2 years for dissuading a
witness. The convictions and findings were affirmed on appeal.
(People v. Savary (Feb. 3, 2015, B247512) [nonpub. opn.].)
       Ten years later, in July 2022, Savary filed, in both cases, a
“MOTION FOR RETURN OF PERSONAL PROPERTY
(FORMAL) AND PITCHESS MOTION – SENATE BILL 1421,
SENATE BILL 16.” On August 1, 2022, in both cases, appellant
filed a “MOTION FOR ‘COURT ORDER’ ALLOWING FAMILY
VISITS BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND HIS WIFE, AND
BETWEEN DEFENDANT AND HIS GRANDMOTHER &
MOTION TO DISMISS OR REDUCE RESTITUTION FINE.” On
August 1, 2022, in both cases, Savary filed a “PETITION FOR
RECALL OF SENTENCING WITH MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
OR REDUCE FIRST DEGREE MURDER TO

                                  2
MANSLAUGHTER, ORDER NEW TRIAL FOR CONSPIRACY
MURDER OR DISMISS CONSPIRACY, & COVID RELEASE
FROM CUSTODY.”
       On August 26, 2022, in both cases, the trial court
summarily denied all motions, finding “There is no substantial
right the defendant is attempting to enforce.” On September 14,
2022, Savary timely filed notices of appeal from the denial of all
motions in both cases.
       We appointed counsel to represent appellant on appeal. On
August 9, 2023, counsel filed a no-issue brief pursuant to People
v. Delgadillo. Counsel advised us he had told appellant he may
file his own supplemental brief within 30 days. Counsel sent
appellant transcripts of the record on appeal as well as a copy of
the brief.
       On August 9, 2023, this court sent appellant a notice that a
brief raising no issues had been filed on his behalf. We advised
appellant he had 30 days within which to submit a supplemental
brief or letter stating any ground for appeal he believes we should
consider. We also advised appellant that if he did not file a
supplemental brief, the appeal may be dismissed as abandoned.
       Appellant filed a supplemental brief. He contends:
1) Detective Jose Espino stole his property and gave it to witness
Tiemeyer McCain as payment for false testimony, which was
unknown to the court, the defense, and the jury; 2) the property
is exculpatory or mitigating evidence because if the jury knew the
witness was being paid for false testimony, the witness would not
have been believed and he would not have been convicted; 3) the
Pitchess motion should have been granted because Espino was a
“dirty cop”; 4) Savary was inappropriately denied the opportunity
to participate in the privilege of family visitation while

                                3
incarcerated; 5) the court should circumvent the resentencing
process under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d), and recall
his sentence without waiting for a recommendation from the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, based
on his military service, exceptional conduct and good behavior
while incarcerated; 6) the trial court should have released his
“property records” which are being held by the court.
      As a general rule when a defendant is committed and
execution of the sentence begins, the trial court loses jurisdiction
to reconsider, vacate or modify the sentence except as set out
below. (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344; People v.
King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.) Where a trial court lacks
jurisdiction to entertain a motion, the court of appeal has no
appellate jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and it must be
dismissed. (Ibid.; People v. Dynes (2018) 20 Cal.App.5th 523, 528;
People v. Clinton (1966) 243 Cal.App.2d 284, 288.)
      As to the contention that the court should recall Savary’s
sentence under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)
(renumbered now as Penal Code section 1172.1), the court’s
power to modify a sentence on its own motion is authorized only
within 120 days of the date on which the sentence was imposed,
or when and if the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
has made a sentence modification recommendation to the court.
Put another way, a defendant does not have the right to initiate
resentencing under the statute. (Dix v. Superior Court (1991)
53 Cal.3d 442, 456; People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719,
1724.) Because the court lacked jurisdiction to resentence
Savary, the order denying the motion did not affect his
substantial rights and the order is not appealable. (Chlad, at
p. 1725–1726.)

                                 4
      An order denying a motion for return of property—whether
or not the property has been admitted as evidence in a criminal
trial—is not among the matters for which an appeal is permitted
under Penal Code section 1237. (People v. Hopkins (2009)
171 Cal.App.4th 305, 308. The rulings as to Savary’s property
and property records are not appealable.
      The motion for family visitation “is not directed to the
criminal action resulting in defendant’s conviction; and the order
therein could not have affected any substantial right subject to
that action.” (People v. Tuttle (1966) 242 Cal.App.2d 883, 885.)
In addition, it is not listed among any of the matters for which an
appeal is authorized by Penal Code section 1237. The ruling is
not appealable.
      The remaining motions alleging Detective Espino’s
misconduct and Tiemeyer McCain’s false testimony are waived as
they were not timely raised in Savary’s first appeal as of right. If
they were discovered after judgment became final, they are
properly raised by petition for habeas corpus rather than by
motion in a trial court, which has no jurisdiction to adjudicate
such motions where, as here, the judgment is final.

                                 5
                          DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

                                    STRATTON, P. J.

We concur:

             GRIMES, J.

             WILEY, J.

                                6