California Court of Appeal Apr 2, 2025 No. E083682Unpublished
Filed 4/2/25 P. v. Peete 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083682
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB051143)
RAGUE RAMAPO PEETE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Alexander R.
Martinez, Judge. Dismissed.
Marta I. Stanton, 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, Collette C. Cavalier and
Christopher P. Beesley, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Rague Ramapo Peete filed a request for resentencing
pursuant to Penal Code § 1172.1,1 which the court denied. We dismiss the appeal.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On April 20, 2006, a jury convicted defendant of carjacking. (§ 215, subd. (a),
letter is but an invitation to the court to exercise its equitable jurisdiction,” which
4
“furnishes the court with the jurisdiction it would not otherwise possess to recall and
resentence.” [Citation.]’ [Citation.]”.)
Where the court is outside its own statutory timeframe for recalling the
defendant’s sentence, the court does not exercise its equitable jurisdiction to recall the
sentence on its own motion, and neither the Department nor the pertinent prosecuting
agencies furnish a recommendation for recalling the sentence, courts have no jurisdiction
to rule on the merits of any requested section 1172.1 relief. (See Codinha, supra,
92 Cal.App.5th at p. 988; see also People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [A
trial court lacks jurisdiction pursuant to section 1172.75 to adjudicate a defendant’s own
motion for resentencing, and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over appeals from the
denial of such a motion; therefore, an appeal from such an order must be dismissed.].)
Here, nearly 15 years have passed since defendant’s judgment was final. Thus, the
court did not have jurisdiction pursuant to the statutory timeline to recall defendant’s
sentence. Moreover, none of the pertinent authorities reflected in the statute provided a
recommendation to the court to recall and resentence defendant. Finally, to the extent the
statute provides the court equitable jurisdiction to recall and resentence defendant on its
own motion at any time, the court did not here do so. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a).) The court’s
denial was in response to defendant’s request; it was not done on the court’s own motion.
Thus, the court declined to exercise any discretion the court had to recall the sentence.
Therefore, neither the court below nor this court have jurisdiction over the matter.
5
In E.M., the appellate court held that the trial court erred in denying recall of
defendant’s sentence, after the Department recommended resentencing defendant, “on
the sole ground that Senate Bill [No.] 1393 did not apply retroactively to E.M.’s case
because it was final on appeal.” (E.M., supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 1088.) The court held
that “trial courts have the authority to recall and resentence defendants based on
postjudgment changes in the law giving courts discretion to strike or dismiss
enhancements, even when the judgment in the case is long since final . . . .” (Id. at
p. 1090.)
Here, the Department did not recommend resentencing defendant. Even if the
court erred to the extent that it concluded that defendant could never receive the benefit
of ameliorative relief from the statutes cited by defendant in his request,2 the court was
not acting upon its own motion. Rather, the court was responding to defendant’s own
request, which the statute expressly bars. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c).) Thus, jurisdiction
pursuant to section 1172.1 was never properly invoked. Neither the court below nor this
court has jurisdiction to act upon defendant’s request for recall and resentencing.
2 “Assembly Bill [No.] 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively [only] to cases . . . , in which the judgments of conviction have not become final prior to the effective date of Assembly Bill [No.] 333. [Citations.]” (People v. Lee (2022) 81 Cal.App.5th 232, 237.) “‘The key date is the date of final judgment. If the amendatory statute lessening punishment becomes effective prior to the date the judgment of conviction becomes final then . . . . it, and not the old statute in effect when the prohibited act was committed, applies.’ [Citation.]” (People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40, 44.) “Under well-established case law, a court may exercise its dismissal power under section 1385 at any time before judgment is pronounced—but not after judgment is final.” (People v. Chavez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 771, 777.)
6
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MILLER J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the defendant's unauthorized request for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1, as no authorized entity had recommended the recall.
Issues
Does a trial court have jurisdiction to rule on a defendant's own motion for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1?
Does an appellate court have jurisdiction over an appeal from the denial of a defendant's unauthorized motion for resentencing under section 1172.1?
Disposition. Dismissed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.”
“Neither the court below nor this court has jurisdiction to act upon defendant’s request for recall and resentencing.”