Court Opinion

ID: 9838516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-06 17:04:50.819224+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:37.616048
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/6/23 P. v. Pradia 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C096827

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FE-
                                                                                       2013-0005395)
           v.

 CARL PRADIA,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In 2013, defendant Carl Pradia pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, one
count of dissuading a witness by force, and admitted the truth of a firearm enhancement.
The trial court sentenced him to 14 years in prison. Defendant argues the trial court erred
in denying the recommendation of the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation to recall his sentence and resentence him. (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (b);
undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Defendant, however, failed to
file a timely notice appeal from the trial court’s April 2021 ruling, and waited until the
trial court granted defendant’s motion for reconsideration and denied the motion again in
August 2022. The trial court’s order denying the recommendation was final in 2021, and

                                                             1
the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain it again in 2022. As a result, we dismiss the
appeal.

                      FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
       The facts of these cases are taken from the description submitted by the Secretary
of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Secretary). On the morning of
February 11, 2023, defendant and two accomplices robbed four victims at gunpoint in a
hotel room of the I-5 Inn. Defendant was waving the gun around and yelling for
everyone to get down on the floor. During the robbery, one of his accomplices punched
one of the victims. Defendant demanded the victims give him all of their money,
jewelry, and cell phones.
       That evening, defendant and one accomplice returned to the I-5 Inn with a gun and
threatened a tenant. When officers arrived, defendant and his accomplice went into a
room, and an officer saw defendant throw a handgun out of a back window.
       The information charged defendant with four counts of robbery (§ 211); four
counts of dissuading a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1)); criminal threats (§ 422); personally
using a firearm during the robberies and while dissuading the witnesses (§§ 12022.53,
subd. (b), 12022.5); and being a felon in possession of a gun and ammunition (§§ 29800,
subd. (a), 30305, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery,
one count of dissuading a witness by force, and admitted one firearm enhancement. The
trial court dismissed the remaining counts and enhancements with a waiver pursuant to
People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754.
       On November 18, 2013, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term
of 14 years in prison: The middle term of four years on the initial robbery count (§ 211),
plus 10 years for personally using a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The trial court also
sentenced defendant to a concurrent four-year term on the dissuading a witness count
(§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1).)

                                              2
         On April 5, 2021, the Secretary sent a letter to the trial court recommending recall
of defendant’s sentence under then-section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) because of the
changes in the trial court’s discretion regarding the section 12022.53 firearm
enhancement.
         On April 29, 2021, the trial court summarily denied the request for recall.
         In March 2022, defendant filed a motion to reconsider denial of the section 1170,
subdivision (d) request to recall and resentence. In April 2022, the trial court granted
defendant’s motion for reconsideration over the prosecution’s objection. The trial court
held a hearing on August 15, 2022, and received testimony. At the conclusion of the
hearing, the trial court stated, “I was surprised when I read the request by the Department
of Corrections for me to reconsider the sentence because there is nothing positive in this
letter by the Department of Corrections, nothing positive at all. It shows that he has 22
rules violations. It shows that he had four counseling chronos concerning his classes that
he was taking.· It shows . . . he was . . . either on parole or just off of parole at the time
this incident occurred. He has prior felonies. . . [¶] . . . [¶] [l]ooking at the facts of this
case, I – I think he is a threat to public safety. I am going to deny the request for
resentencing.”
         Defendant filed a notice of appeal on August 19, 2022, from the August 15, 2022
order.

                                         DISCUSSION
         Defendant contends the trial court erred in its second ruling on the Secretary’s
recommendation. Based on our review, we asked the parties to provide supplemental
briefing on whether this court has jurisdiction to decide this appeal given that the trial
court denied the recommendation in April 2021, and the notice of appeal was not filed
until August 23, 2022.

                                                3
       Defendant did not answer the question asked but instead requested that this court
treat his appeal as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We decline this invitation. The
People argue we lack jurisdiction to decide the appeal due to defendant’s failure to file a
timely appeal. We agree with the People.
       “In general, an appealable order that is not appealed becomes final and binding
and may not subsequently be attacked on an appeal from a later appealable order or
judgment.” (People v. Ramirez (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1412, 1421.) Further, a trial
court generally lacks jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once the execution of
the sentence has begun. (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1089.) In other
words, “ ‘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.) “ ‘[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.’ ” (Ibid.)
       Here, the trial court denied the Secretary’s recommendation on April 29, 2021.
That ruling became final sixty days after it was issued in June 2021. (Cal. Rules of
Court, rule 8.308(a).) Defendant’s August 2022 notice of appeal was not timely as to this
original order. (Ibid.) “An untimely notice of appeal is ‘wholly ineffectual: The delay
cannot be waived, it cannot be cured by nunc pro tunc order, and the appellate court has
no power to give relief, but must dismiss the appeal on motion or on its own motion.’ ”
(People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094.)
       Moreover, defendant was not authorized to file an application to reconsider that
April 2021 order in March of 2022. (People v. King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 641.)
The trial court lacked jurisdiction to both grant defendant’s application for
reconsideration in April 2022 and redetermine its ruling on the Secretary’s
recommendation in August 2022. (Ibid.) Thus, its order granting the request for
reconsideration and subsequent order denying the application for recall and resentencing

                                             4
are not appealable orders (id. at p. 634), and we dismiss this appeal. Because of this
dismissal, we are not required to address defendant’s request for judicial notice.

                                       DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                                 HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

MAURO, J.

MESIWALA, J.

                                             5