California Court of Appeal Mar 11, 2025 No. E082952Unpublished
Filed 3/11/25 P. v. Riels CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E082952
v. (Super.Ct.No. CR56849)
LEE WENDELL RIELS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Dismissed.
Laura Arnold, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Kathryn Kirschbaum and
Collette C. Cavalier, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
At a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 the court denied defendant
and appellant Lee Wendell Riels’s request for a full resentencing hearing. On appeal,
defendant contends this court should reverse the order and remand the matter to the trial
court with directions to hold a full resentencing hearing. We dismiss.
The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 36 years
to life. The court struck one of the prior prison term enhancements and imposed but
stayed sentence on the other. (Riels, supra, E015633.)
Defendant appealed. By opinion filed November 21, 1996, this court affirmed the
judgment. (Riels, supra, E015633.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2 On our own motion, we take judicial notice of this court’s nonpublished opinion from defendant’s appeal of the judgment in People v. Riels (Nov. 21, 1996, E015633) (Riels). (Evid. Code, § 459.)
2
On December 28, 2023, after a hearing at which defendant was represented by
counsel, the court denied defendant’s request for a full resentencing hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends this court should reverse and remand the matter with
directions to the trial court to hold a full resentencing hearing. The People maintain we
should affirm the trial court’s order in reliance on People v. Rhodius (2023)
97 Cal.App.5th 38, review granted February 21, 2024, S283169. We dismiss.
Senate Bill No. 483 (Senate Bill 483) (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) added section
1171.1 to the Penal Code (Stats. 2021, ch. 728), which the Legislature subsequently
renumbered, without substantive change, as section 1172.75 (Stats 2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff.
June 30, 2022). (People v. Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 42.) “Section 1172.75,
subdivision (a), states that ‘[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to
January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any
enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally
invalid.’ [Citation.] Section 1172.75 instructs the CDCR to identify those persons in
their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement under
section 667.5(b) (excluding sexually violent offenses) and provide such information to
the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement. [Citation.] Subsequently, the
sentencing court ‘shall review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes
a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a).’ [Citation.] ‘If the court
3
determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision
(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.’ [Citation.]” (Ibid.)
“Of course, ‘the defendant . . . bears the burden to provide a record on appeal
which affirmatively shows that there was error below, and any uncertainty in the record
must be resolved against the defendant.’ [Citation.]” (People v. Moore (2021) 68
Cal.App.5th 856, 866 [“Because appellant has failed to provide an adequate record for
review, his claim fails. [Citation.]”.)
“[S]ection 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or
her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation [(CDCR)] identifying a defendant as a person serving a
sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. [Citation.]” (People v. Cota
(2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332 (Cota); accord, People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th
265, 268 (Newell); accord, People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 (Burgess).)
Here, the record is not clear as to who initiated the hearing pursuant to section
1172.75. The record contains neither a letter from the CDCR nor a motion or petition
from defendant recommending or requesting resentencing. In his opening brief,
defendant notes merely that his “case came before the superior court for resentencing.”
He does not explain how or why. The People similarly note that the issue of resentencing
simply came up at a hearing.
However, trial courts have no jurisdiction pursuant to section 1172.75 unless they
are initiated by the CDCR. (Cota, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 332; Newell, supra, 93
4
Cal.App.5th at p. 268; Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 382.) Similarly, this court
has no jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.75 motion filed by a
defendant. (Burgess, at p. 382.) Thus, since defendant has failed to show that either we
or the court below have jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to establish that the trial court or the appellate court had jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1172.75, which requires initiation by the CDCR.
Issues
Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct a resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 absent initiation by the CDCR.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.75 motion filed by a defendant.
Disposition. dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“trial courts have no jurisdiction pursuant to section 1172.75 unless they are initiated by the CDCR.”
“this court has no jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a section 1172.75 motion filed by a defendant.”
“since defendant has failed to show that either we or the court below have jurisdiction, we must dismiss the appeal.”