Court Opinion

ID: 9928020
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-30 18:03:38.43015+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:44:48.688567
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/30/24 P. v. Curtis 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098860

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 94F06354)

           v.

 ERIC CURTIS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         In 1995, a jury found defendant Eric Curtis guilty of unlawfully possessing a
firearm and evading a peace officer, and the trial court found he had two strikes. The
trial court then sentenced defendant to state prison for 50 years to life as follows: 25
years to life for unlawfully possessing the firearm and 25 years to life for evading the
peace officer. We affirmed the judgment. (People v. Curtis (Aug. 15, 1997, C021885)
[nonpub. opn.].)
         In April 2023, defendant filed a motion for resentencing under Penal Code section
1172.75. (Further section references are to the Penal Code.) In May 2023, the trial court

                                                             1
denied defendant’s motion, finding that the court lacked jurisdiction and that defendant’s
sentence did not include any enhancements.
       Defendant now appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing. His
appellate counsel filed a brief raising no arguable issues under People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 and asks that we review the record for arguable issues. Defendant was
advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of
filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days have elapsed, and we have received no
communication from defendant.
       Like the trial court, we lack jurisdiction to consider the matter. (People v. King
(2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.) The right to appeal is statutory. (People v. Clark
(2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254.) An order following judgment is appealable only if it
affects a defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) Generally, subject to certain
statutory exceptions, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal
defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. (People v. Pillsbury (2021)
69 Cal.App.5th 776, 784.) Section 1172.75 is an exception to that general rule,
permitting notification from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
to vest the trial court with jurisdiction to review the judgment and recall and resentence
defendant. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) A defendant who files a petition without statutory
permission does not vest the sentencing court with jurisdiction to resentence. (People v.
Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)
       The trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify defendant’s sentence through his
petition. Because the trial court could not have granted defendant’s petition, the trial
court’s denial of that petition could not have affected his substantial rights, and we must
dismiss the appeal. (People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1726-1727.)

                                              2
                                DISPOSITION
     The appeal is dismissed.

                                          /s/
                                         MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/
DUARTE, J.

                                     3