People v. Davis CA3

Filed 2/28/25 P. v. Davis CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100317

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. STK-CR- CNV-1997-17439, v. SP061873A)

WILLIS DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Over 26 years into his 15-years-to-life sentence for second degree murder, and long after his judgment had become final, defendant Willis Davis moved in the trial court for additional presentence credit. The court summarily denied his request. On appeal, he contends that the court abused its discretion and asks us to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing at which the trial court can calculate the proper credit award. We conclude that we lack jurisdiction to consider Davis’s contention. We therefore dismiss the appeal without prejudice to Davis’s ability to file a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

1

BACKGROUND In October 1997, the trial court sentenced Davis to prison for 15 years to life following his conviction for second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187).1 The court awarded him 117 days of credit, consisting of 102 actual days and 15 days of conduct credit. In November 2023, Davis, acting in propria persona, filed a motion in the trial court requesting additional presentence credits and a full resentencing. He argued that he was entitled to 60 additional days of credit (for a total of 154 actual days and 23 days of conduct credit) for time he spent in a juvenile detention facility between May 7 and June 27, 1997, before being booked into county jail. In January 2024, without appointing an attorney or holding an evidentiary hearing, the trial court denied Davis’s motion, reasoning that there was “insufficient proof provided regarding credits to change the award of credits at this time.” The court denied “[a]ll other requests” as well. DISCUSSION On appeal, Davis contends that the trial court abused its discretion by summarily denying his motion for additional credits. He asks us to remand the matter for an evidentiary hearing so the trial court can calculate the proper award. The People concede error and agree the matter should be remanded. We must first consider whether we have jurisdiction to consider Davis’s appeal. “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.’ [Citations.] And, ‘[i]f the trial court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or modify a sentence, an order denying such a motion is nonappealable, and any