Court Opinion

ID: 9403254
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-20 19:04:05.721648+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:05.815428
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/20/23 P. v. Munguia CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                     B322556

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County
                                                                Super. Ct. No.
         v.                                                     KA090669)

MICHAEL HUMBERTO
MUNGUIA,

         Defendant and Appellant.

     THE COURT:
     Defendant and appellant Michael Humberto Munguia
appeals from the trial court’s July 12, 2022, order summarily
denying his motion for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483
(2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 483). Because the order is
nonappealable, we dismiss defendant’s appeal.
                           BACKGROUND
        In 2010, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of
criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422)1 and two counts of assault
with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury also found true
various sentencing enhancement allegations. Following a bench
trial, the trial court found that defendant had suffered two prior
convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b).
The court sentenced defendant to a total term of 30 years four
months in state prison, which included two one-year
section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements.
        On direct appeal, we remanded the matter with directions
that the trial court strike certain sentence enhancements other
than those associated with section 667.5, subdivision (b). (People
v. Munguia (Apr. 16, 2013, B232339) [nonpub. opn.], pp. 13–14.)
We otherwise affirmed the judgment. (Id. at p. 14.) On remand,
the court resentenced defendant to a prison term of 20 years four
months.
        In July 2022, defendant filed a motion to strike the
section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements pursuant to newly
enacted Senate Bill 483. On July 12, 2022, the trial court
summarily denied the motion on the ground that defendant
lacked “‘standing’” to bring it. Defendant filed a notice of appeal.
        Counsel was appointed to represent defendant in
connection with this appeal. After reviewing the record,
appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues and asking this
court to follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). On April 17, 2023, we notified
defendant that he had 30 days within which to personally submit

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

                                 2
a supplemental brief or letter stating any grounds for an appeal,
contentions, or arguments for us to consider. We also informed
defendant that his appeal could be dismissed if a supplemental
brief or letter was not timely filed. To date, defendant has not
filed a supplemental brief or letter.
                           DISCUSSION
       When defendant was sentenced, “section 667.5,
subdivision (b) required trial courts to impose a one-year
sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the
defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not
remained free of custody for at least five years. [Citation.]”
(People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380 (Burgess).)
Effective January 1, 2022, Senate Bill 483 added former
section 1171.1, now section 1172.75,2 which renders “legally
invalid” any section 667.5, subdivision (b) sentence enhancement
imposed prior to January 1, 2020, “except for any enhancement
imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . .”
(§ 1172.75, subd. (a).)
       Section 1172.75 also “establishes a mechanism to provide
affected defendants a remedy for those legally invalid
enhancements.” (Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 380.) It
directs the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation and the correctional administrator of each
county to identify affected defendants and provide their
information to the sentencing court. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) The

2     Effective June 30, 2022, section 1171.1 was renumbered
section 1172.75, with no substantive changes. (Stats. 2022,
ch. 58, § 12; Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 378, fn. 2.) For
simplicity, we refer to the section by its new numbering.

                                  3
sentencing court must then conduct a review and resentence the
defendant if appropriate. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)
       Section 1172.75 does not provide “resentencing relief
initiated by any individual defendant’s petition or motion.”
(Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 384.) Here, defendant
nevertheless filed a motion challenging his sentence under
section 1172.75 years after the judgment was final and he had
begun serving his sentence. “[A] freestanding motion challenging
an incarcerated defendant’s sentence is not a proper procedural
mechanism to seek relief. A motion is not an independent
remedy, but must be attached to some ongoing action.
[Citation.]” (People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 640
(King).) Without an “ongoing action” (ibid.), the trial court lacked
jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant’s motion. (Burgess, supra, at
p. 382; see also King, supra, at p. 634 [“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[]’”].) And, because the trial court lacked
jurisdiction, its order denying defendant’s motion is
nonappealable. (Burgess, supra, at pp. 381–382; King, supra, at
p. 634.)
       We, in turn, lack jurisdiction to consider an appeal from an
nonappealable order and must dismiss the appeal. (Burgess,
supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at pp. 381–382; King, supra,
77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634; see also Adohr Milk Farms, Inc. v. Love
(1967) 255 Cal.App.2d 366, 369 [an appellate “court is without
jurisdiction to consider an appeal from a nonappealable order,

                                 4
and has the duty to dismiss such an appeal upon its own
motion”].)3
                        DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.
     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

____________________________________________________________
ASHMANN-GERST, Acting P. J. CHAVEZ, J. HOFFSTADT, J.

3     Even if we had jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, we
would dismiss it as abandoned based on defendant’s failure to file
a supplemental brief or letter. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pp. 222, 231–232; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 503–504.)

                                5