People v. Denard CA2/1

Filed 6/6/25 P. v. Denard CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B340412

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. A968974) v.

DEAUTRI C. DENARD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Affirmed in part, dismissed in part. Deautri C. Denard, in pro. per.; Jennifer Peabody and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. __________________________________

Thirty-two years after a court sentenced appellant Deautri C. Denard to life imprisonment, he filed a motion for “Relief Due to Discrimination pursuant to Penal Code section 745(a),” and a motion for “Juvenile Fitness/Transfer Hearing.”1 In July 2024, the superior court denied both motions, and Denard appealed. After his appointed appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 attesting they could find no arguable issues, Denard filed a supplemental brief, accusing the Los Angeles Police Department detectives who investigated his crimes of racial bias, claiming his prior counsel was ineffective, and alleging the police and district attorney’s office withheld evidence in his case. He did not address why the superior court’s denial of his section 745 motion was appealable, or why the court erred in denying his motion for “Juvenile Fitness/Transfer Hearing.” Because Denard was in custody when he filed his section 745 motion, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to act on it, rendering the court’s denial unappealable. Therefore, we dismiss that portion of Denard’s appeal. Because Denard fails to argue let alone demonstrate how the trial court erred in denying his motion for a “Juvenile Fitness/Transfer Hearing,” we affirm the court’s order denying that motion.