People v. Wilson

Filed 2/27/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. A168965 CHARLES DAVID WILSON, (Alameda County Super. Ct. Defendant and Appellant. No. 18CR019576)

Charles David Wilson pled no contest to kidnapping, and he admitted one aggravating factor and a firearm enhancement. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court imposed a 12-year prison sentence. Wilson later filed a petition for resentencing, but the court concluded it did not have jurisdiction. On appeal, he contends the court erred. We disagree and dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND 1 In 2018, the prosecution charged Wilson with 14 felony counts. In 2022, he pled no contest to one count of kidnapping, and he admitted using a firearm and one factor in aggravation — the crime involved great violence, bodily harm, the threat of bodily harm, or other acts disclosing a high degree of cruelty, viciousness, or callousness. (Pen. Code, §§ 207, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a), undesignated statutory references are to this code; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.421(a)(1).) In exchange, the prosecutor dismissed the remaining

1 We set forth only those facts necessary to the resolution of the issue

before us. (People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 851.) 1

counts and related special allegations and firearm enhancements. The parties agreed to a 12-year sentence — an aggravated eight-year term for kidnapping, and a four-year midterm for using a gun. The trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence on November 17, 2022. On March 17, 2023 — 120 days after sentencing — Wilson petitioned the trial court to resentence him under former section 1172.1 and “consistent with the newly issued directives of the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.” He attached the “Interim Final Special Directive 23-01.3” (some capitalizations omitted; directive). Its stated purpose was to reduce reliance on enhancements and allegations “to bring balance back to sentencing and reduce recidivism.” (Boldface omitted.) It indicated: “Generally, prosecutors shall not file or require defendants [to] plead to sentence enhancements or other sentencing allegations,” prosecutors “are prohibited from filing conduct and status enhancements,” and “[f]irearm allegations pursuant to Penal Code section 12022.53 shall not be filed [or] used for sentencing.” It also specified that, for “PC § 1170(h) eligible felonies probation shall be the presumptive offer.” But the policies were presumptive — not mandatory — and they allowed exceptions subject to supervisor approval. As for resentencing, the directive stated, “pursuant to PC § 1172.1(a), if a defendant was sentenced prior to the effective date of this directive and is within 120 days of their sentencing, prosecutors are instructed to stipulate to recall and resentencing upon defense counsel’s request in accordance with this directive.” In August, 2023, the trial court determined it did not have jurisdiction to entertain Wilson’s petition. It concluded it could only use its “ ‘ “own- motion” ’ ” jurisdiction if it recalled the sentence within 120 days of the original commitment, and it had not. And it noted that, although Wilson could invite the court to use its own-motion jurisdiction to recall the sentence,