People v. Noble CA6

Filed 6/3/25 P. v. Noble CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H052438 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. CC252886)

v.

WILBERT LEE NOBLE,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT1 Wilbert Lee Noble appeals a post-judgment order denying his request to reduce or vacate restitution fines and fees pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1).2 Noble’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) asking the court to independently review the record. Noble filed a supplemental brief asserting that the trial court did not follow established rules and regulations in assessing his ability to pay when it made the subject order. However, as the trial court recognized, it lacked jurisdiction to alter Noble’s sentence. As a result, this court lacks jurisdiction over Noble’s appeal, and we therefore dismiss the appeal.

1 Before Grover, Acting P. J., Danner, J., and Bromberg, J. 2 Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

I. BACKGROUND In February 2003, a jury found Noble guilty of one count of aggravated sexual assault of a child under 14 (§§ 269, subd. (a)(1), 288 subd. (a), count one); three counts of a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14 (§ 288 subd. (a), counts three, four, and five); and one count of false imprisonment (§§ 236-237, count six). He was found not guilty of one additional count of aggravated sexual assault on a child under 14 (§§ 269 subd. (a)(1), 286, count two). Noble admitted that he had two prior felony convictions within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a). The court found that Noble had a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) and that the prior felonies qualified as serious/violent felonies within the meaning of sections 667, subdivisions (b)-(i), and 1170.12. The trial court sentenced Noble to an indeterminate term of 120 years to life in state prison consecutive to 10 years. The court ordered $10,000 in restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and $10,000 in restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.45, suspended unless parole was revoked. On appeal, Noble’s conviction and sentence were affirmed. (People v. Noble (Feb. 11, 2004, H025795) [unpub. opn.].) In March 2024, Noble filed a motion to reduce or vacate the restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f)(1), among other statutes, contending that at the time of sentencing he was indigent. Relying heavily on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), Noble argued that the trial court improperly failed to consider his ability to pay before ordering restitution. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the requested relief. It distinguished Noble’s circumstances from those of the appellant in Dueñas, concluding that Noble failed to show that the sentencing court did not consider his ability to pay at the time of sentencing, or that the sentencing court would not have imposed the maximum fine had it considered his ability to pay. Noble timely appealed from the order.