Court Opinion

ID: 9545146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:12.009326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:17:52.136926
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Pope 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097564

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 03F00237)

           v.

 JACOBY NEHEMIAH POPE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Jacoby Nehemiah Pope has asked this court to
review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Because we conclude defendant has appealed
from a nonappealable order, we will dismiss the appeal.

                             FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
         In 2004, a jury found defendant Jacoby Nehemiah Pope guilty of attempted
murder and discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle and found true firearm

                                                             1
enhancement allegations for each offense. The trial court sentenced defendant to 58
years eight months to life in prison, which included two terms of 25 years to life in prison
for the firearm enhancements.
       In 2022, defendant filed a motion asking the trial court to resentence him and
dismiss the enhancements, pursuant to recently enacted amendments to the Penal Code.
The trial court denied the motion because the recent amendments did not apply to
defendant’s firearm enhancements. Defendant timely appealed from the order denying
his motion.

                                        DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s motion asked the trial court to resentence him and dismiss the firearm
enhancements from his sentence. We conclude that none of the new statutes defendant
relies on give the trial court jurisdiction over defendant’s sentence. Because the trial
court lacked jurisdiction to grant any relief that would affect defendant’s substantial
rights, he may not appeal from the postjudgment order denying his motion.
“Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to
resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced.”
(People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344.) Specifically, once “the trial court
relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses jurisdiction over that defendant.” (Ibid.)
There are statutory exceptions to this rule, which grant trial courts jurisdiction to recall
and modify sentences in certain circumstances. (See, e.g., Pen. Code, §§ 1170.126,
1170.18, 1172.1-1172.6; statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal
Code unless otherwise stated.) But, “[u]nless an exception to the general rule applies, the
trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on [defendant’s] motion and the appeal must
be dismissed.” (People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084.) The statutes
defendant relies on do not create such an exception.

                                               2
       Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) added former sections 1171 and
1171.1 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §§ 2-3), now codified as sections 1172.7 and 1172.75 (Stats.
2022, ch. 58, §§ 11-12 [renumbering these sections with no substantive change in the text
of the provisions]). These provisions require trial courts to recall sentences that include
prior drug trafficking conviction enhancements and prior prison commitment
enhancements and resentence defendants, but only upon notification by the Secretary of
the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and pursuant to a statutorily proscribed
schedule. (§§ 1172.7, subds. (b) & (c), 1172.75, subds. (b) & (c); see People v.
Scarano (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 993, 1005, fn. 11, review pending June 1, 2022,
S273830.) Neither provision permits a trial court to modify a defendant’s sentence in
response to a motion. (Cf. People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1724-1725
[provision requiring motion by a court or recommendation from corrections officials to
recall sentence does not give defendant “standing to make a motion for recall of
sentence”].)
       Similarly, Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), which modified section
1385 (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1), does not provide jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s
sentence. (See § 1385.)
       We see no other basis for jurisdiction, so we conclude the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to grant any relief in response to defendant’s motion. “Because the trial court
lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant’s sentence, denial of his motion to modify his
sentence could not have affected his substantial rights. [Citation.] Accordingly, the
‘order denying [the] motion to modify sentence is not an appealable order,’ and the
appeal must be dismissed.” (People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                              3
                   HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MAURO, J.

MESIWALA, J.

               4