People v. Kishor CA3

Filed 10/8/24 P. v. Kishor CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C100492

v. (Super. Ct. No. 98F01523)

CHANDRA KISHOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 1998, defendant Chandra Kishor sent three people to his estranged wife’s home to rob and murder her. The three were to keep the proceeds of the robbery as payment for the murder. In addition to robbing the victim, they assaulted her, tried to drown her, smothered her with a bleach-soaked rag, tried to set her on fire, and stabbed her twice in the back. The victim survived. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder and robbery. The trial court sentenced him to state prison for an indeterminate term of life with the possibility of parole consecutive to a determinate term of four years. Defendant’s judgment became final in June 2001, after this court affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion, People v. Kishor (Jan. 9, 2001, C034740).

1

In January 2024, defendant filed a motion in the trial court alleging his conviction was obtained in violation of Penal Code section 745, the California Racial Justice Act of 2020 (the Racial Justice Act).1 The trial court dismissed the motion, concluding it did not have jurisdiction to entertain such a motion after defendant’s case was final. The trial court did, however, grant a separate motion to vacate certain fees under newly enacted Government Code section 6111, but denied defendant’s request for a hearing to determine his ability to pay the remaining fines and fees under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), concluding Dueñas did not apply retroactively to final cases. Defendant now contends the trial court erred in (1) dismissing his motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act, and (2) denying his request for an ability-to-pay hearing. Because the challenged orders are nonappealable, we will dismiss his appeal. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act. The People counter that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because defendant’s judgment became final in June 2001. We agree with the People. Regarding the retroactivity of the Racial Justice Act, and as relevant to this case, section 745, subdivision (j)(3) states that after January 1, 2024, the section applies to all cases in which the defendant is serving a prison sentence and files a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Here, defendant did not file a habeas corpus petition. Defendant sought to have his final convictions and sentence vacated and declared legally invalid. The “general rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and execution of