Court Opinion

ID: 9840277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-15 19:05:37.725638+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:11:58.454223
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/15/23 P. v. Soto-Enriquez 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                                             NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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,                                                                                   C097478

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 06F05369)

           v.

 MIGUEL SOTO-ENRIQUEZ,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Miguel Soto-Enriquez killed one person and seriously injured another in a
gang shooting when he was 16 years old. He was originally sentenced in 2008 to life
without parole for murder plus additional terms for attempted murder and enhancements.
(People v. Soto-Enriquez (July 8, 2009, C059155) [nonpub. opn.].)1 Specifically, the trial
court imposed 25 years to life on each of two firearm enhancements (Pen. Code,2
§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) and 10 years for a gang enhancement (§ 186.22). The court also
imposed a $2,000 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) Defendant has been incarcerated
since his arrest in April 2007.

1 We affirmed the judgment on appeal.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                               1
       In 2016, the trial court granted defendant’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and
resentenced him to an aggregate term of 17 years determinate plus 75 years to life. The
court also modified the restitution fine to $10,000. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) In 2017,
defendant filed a written request to modify the increased restitution fine, but the court
denied it in October 2017. Nothing in the record suggests defendant appealed from the trial
court’s October 2017 order.
       In August 2022, defendant filed a petition for recall and resentencing under
section 1170, arguing he was eligible for relief under a number of newly enacted statutes.3
The trial court denied the petition in November 2022, reasoning it lacked jurisdiction
because defendant’s judgment was final, his sentence had been executed, and none of the
new laws that defendant cited applied to defendant’s final case. Defendant filed a notice of
appeal from the November 2022 order denying his petition.
       On appeal, defendant asks us to remand the matter, arguing the trial court had
jurisdiction in 2022 to recall and resentence him because he was sentenced as a juvenile to
life without parole. (§ 1170, subd. (d).) The People agree, as do we. Defendant further
asks us to reverse the trial court’s order in 2016 that increased his restitution fine. We will
remand the matter to enable the trial court to consider defendant’s resentencing petition
under section 1170. However, we decline to address defendant’s request to reverse the trial
court’s order that increased the restitution fine.
                                         DISCUSSION
                                                 I
       Generally, a trial court loses jurisdiction to resentence a defendant once his sentence
has been executed. (People v. Chamizo (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 696, 700.) However, under

3 Specifically, defendant stated he was entitled to relief under Senate Bills Nos. 483 (2021-
2022 Reg. Sess.), 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), 92 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.), and 823 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), and Assembly Bills Nos. 1540 (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) and 624 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).

                                                2
section 1170, subdivision (d), a defendant (1) younger than 18 years old when he committed
his crime, (2) sentenced to life without parole, and (3) incarcerated for more than 15 years
may petition for recall and resentencing, under specified circumstances. (§ 1170,
subd. (d)(1)-(2), (6), (8).) Given that defendant was under the age of 18 when he committed
his crimes, has been incarcerated for more than 15 years, and was originally sentenced to
life without parole, the trial court did not lack jurisdiction to consider defendant’s petition
for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (d). The People concede
that defendant is not barred from seeking relief under section 1170, subdivision (d) even
though the trial court granted habeas corpus relief in 2016, and we accept the concession.
(See In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1043 [a defendant can choose whether to seek
relief from an unconstitutional sentence either through the writ process, pursuant to § 1170,
subd. (d), or both, and is not required to exhaust one type of remedy first].) Accordingly,
we will remand the matter for the trial court to consider defendant’s petition.
                                                II
       Defendant contends the trial court erred in 2016 when it increased his restitution fine
from $2,000 to $10,000, without any explanation. He did not object to this increase and he
failed to appeal the sentence. In this appeal, he argues the trial court violated his state and
federal constitutional rights to due process by increasing his punishment on resentencing.
       The People respond that the 2016 judgment is final and cannot be considered by this
court in this appeal. Defendant argues the trial court had jurisdiction over the case once
defendant filed his petition for resentencing in August 2022. According to defendant, the
trial court had jurisdiction to correct the unauthorized restitution fine, and we now have
jurisdiction to address the trial court’s failure to do so. In the alternative, defendant argues
that an unauthorized sentence is always correctable, and that we should consider the issue
because it is vulnerable to habeas corpus proceedings on constitutional grounds.
       Ordinarily, a defendant has 60 days in which to file an appeal from a judgment or
order that affects his or her substantial rights. (§ 1237; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308.)

                                                3
Defendant did not file an appeal from the 2016 resentencing or from the trial court’s
October 2017 denial of his motion to reconsider the restitution fine. Moreover, defendant’s
current notice of appeal is limited to the trial court’s November 2022 order denying his
petition for recall and resentencing. Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that the
mere filing of a petition for resentencing under section 1170, subdivision (d) gives the trial
court (and thus this court) jurisdiction over the entire case, including the 2016 resentencing
judgment. Under the circumstances, this court does not have jurisdiction to consider the
matter.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s order denying defendant’s petition for recall and resentencing based
on lack of jurisdiction is reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court for further
proceedings.

                                                    /s/
                                                   Wiseman, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
Mauro, Acting P. J.

 /s/
Mesiwala, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                               4