Court Opinion

ID: 9917251
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 19:02:11.687298+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:59.504108
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/11/24 P. v. Ervin CA1/4

                NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                                 FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                            DIVISION FOUR

 THE PEOPLE,

          Plaintiff and Respondent,                            A166283
 v.
                                                               (Solano County Super. Ct. No.
 MARCUS ERVIN,                                                 FCR354043
          Defendant and Appellant.

                                  MEMORANDUM OPINION1
        Marcus Ervin pleaded no contest to misdemeanor unlawful possession
of ammunition (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)) pursuant to a negotiated plea
agreement. Among the agreed terms, Ervin would serve 90 days in jail,
receive one year of court probation, and have returned to him the $8,770 that
police confiscated at the time of his arrest. Once it appeared he would not
receive that money, Ervin filed a motion for the return of property. At the
conclusion of a hearing on August 17, 2022, the trial court denied the motion,

        1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion.   (Cal. Stds. Jud.
Admin., § 8.1.) Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. We
provide a limited factual summary because our opinion is unpublished and
the parties know, or should know, “the facts of the case and its procedural
history.” (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.)

                                                        1
but it offered Ervin an opportunity to withdraw his plea. In response to the
ruling, Ervin filed this appeal challenging the trial court’s purported “[p]ost-
judgment order denying specific enforcement of [the] plea agreement.”
Because an order denying a motion for the return of property is not
appealable, we must dismiss the appeal.
      “ ‘ “It is settled that the right of appeal is statutory and that a judgment
or order is not appealable unless expressly made so by statute.” [Citation.]’ ”
(Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 598.) Section 1237,
subdivision (b), authorizes appeals from “any order made after judgment,
affecting the substantial rights of a party.” But “courts generally do not find
a defendant’s substantial rights are implicated when a postjudgment order
merely deprives the defendant of personal property.” (Gray v. Superior Court
(2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 1159, 1165.) “A motion for return of property is a
separate procedure from the criminal trial and is not reviewable on an appeal
from an ultimate judgment of conviction. [Citation.] If the ‘separate
proceeding’ of a motion for return is regarded as a criminal proceeding, for
which the right to appeal is governed by . . . section 1237, an order denying
the motion is nonappealable because such an order is not listed among any of
the matters for which an appeal is authorized by . . . section 1237.” (People v.
Hopkins (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 305, 308 (Hopkins).)
      Here, Ervin purports to appeal from the August 17, 2022, “order
denying specific enforcement of [the] plea agreement,” a label he gives to the
trial court’s order denying his motion for the return of property. As the
Attorney General notes in his brief, Hopkins held that such an order is
nonappealable, and neither Ervin’s reply nor our own research has uncovered
authority holding otherwise.

                                        2
       Having concluded we must dismiss this appeal, we deny as moot the
Attorney General’s request to strike Ervin’s opening brief, and we decline to
address the merits of Ervin’s claim of error in the trial court’s order. Finally,
and notwithstanding the fact that the order challenged here is reviewable by
writ of mandate (Hopkins, supra, 171 Cal.App.4th at p. 309), we do not deem
Ervin’s notice of appeal a petition for writ of mandate because he has not
asked us to do so — even after the Attorney General’s brief alerted Ervin to
the authority of Hopkins on this dispositive issue. In any event, an
“individual may seek return of his or her property in a civil action for
recovery of property with an attendant right to appeal from any adverse civil
judgment.” (Hopkins, at p. 309.)
                                  DISPOSITION
       The appeal is dismissed.

                                            _________________________
                                            SMILEY, J. *

We concur:

BROWN, P.J.
STREETER, J.
People v. Ervin (A166283)

       * Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda,

assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.

                                        3