People v. Pantalion CA3

Filed 5/30/25 P. v. Pantalion CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101180

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 14F00367)

v.

CHARLES PANTALION,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2015, defendant Charles Pantalion pled no contest to multiple offenses and enhancements and was sentenced to 25 years in prison. The enhancements included a firearm enhancement under Penal Code1 section 12022.5, subdivision (a); a prior serious felony enhancement under section 667, subdivision (a); and a strike enhancement under section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). In 2024, defendant filed a motion under

1 Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

1

section 1172.75 to strike a now invalid prior prison term enhancement imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b), even though he had not been convicted of an enhancement under that provision. Defendant also requested resentencing under current law. The trial court denied defendant’s motion under section 1172.75 because defendant did not qualify for relief under that statute. The court further dismissed defendant’s motion under section 1172.1 because it was not filed pursuant to an authorized agency’s recommendation and because the court had not made, and further declined to make, its own motion to recall and resentence defendant. Defendant appeals the trial court’s orders. We affirm the trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion to recall and resentence him under section 1172.75 and we dismiss defendant’s appeal of the court’s order declining to recall and resentence him under section 1172.1. DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court erred by denying his motion under section 1172.75 and dismissing his motion under section 1172.1 without first appointing counsel. We disagree. Where, as here, execution of sentence has commenced and the judgment is final, the trial court is generally “deprived of jurisdiction to resentence” a criminal defendant. (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344.) “To obtain resentencing on a final judgment, a defendant must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus [citation], or proceed by way of a special statutory procedure.” (People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1118, citing In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1130.) One of these special statutory procedures is section 1172.75. Defendant, however, cannot bring a motion under section 1172.75 because an enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) was never found true or imposed as part of defendant’s sentence. As relevant here, section 1172.75 invalidates “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5.”