People v. Shelmon CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 2025 No. B337753Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a trial court lacks fundamental jurisdiction to consider a defendant's freestanding post-judgment motion to correct sentencing credits for a final judgment.

Issues

Does a trial court have jurisdiction to consider a defendant's freestanding motion to correct sentencing credits after a judgment has become final?
Should the appellate court exercise its discretion to construe an appeal from an order denying a freestanding motion as a petition for a writ of habeas corpus when the issues involve factual disputes?

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We must dismiss this appeal for lack of jurisdiction.”

“A trial court lacks “fundamental jurisdiction to consider [a defendant’s] freestanding motion” to correct errors in sentencing credits for a sentence that has “long been . . . final.””

“And because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain defendant’s motions, we lack jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from those motions.”

Filed 6/30/25 P. v. Shelmon CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B337753

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA062504) v.

MARLON LONQUANE SHELMON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Carol J. Najera, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Law Offices of John F. Schuck and John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Sophia A. Lecky, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** In 2023, Marlon Lonquane Shelmon (defendant) repeatedly moved the trial court to correct his 2004 sentence, claiming he was awarded the incorrect amount of custody credits. The trial court filed an amended abstract of judgment in January 2025. In this appeal, defendant asserts the trial court erroneously failed to award him 70 days of presentence conduct credit that he earned between 2001 and 2003. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s post-judgment motions to recalculate his custody credits (People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56 (Boyd)) and because their recalculation involves numerous factual issues, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction without prejudice to defendant filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the trial court. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Following a 2002 jury verdict finding defendant guilty of two counts of attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664, subd. (a))2 as well as true findings on allegations that he personally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury (§

People v. Shelmon CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B337753

MARLON LONQUANE SHELMON,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief