People v. Hall CA3

Filed 7/11/25 P. v. Hall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102204

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 08F09312)

v.

MASHAI HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court dismissed defendant Mashai Hall’s pro. per. motion to modify his sentence based on Assembly Bill No. 1618 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1618) and Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393), which each went into effect long after Hall’s judgment was final, and it expressly declined to exercise its discretion under Penal Code1 section 1172.1 to recall and resentence Hall on its own motion. Hall’s appointed counsel filed a brief that raised no issues and asked this court to

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

independently review the record to determine if there are any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to Hall. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Counsel acknowledged that there may be a question regarding the appealability of the challenged order. Hall filed a supplemental brief arguing the order is appealable and that a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the order. He asks that we independently review the record for error. Because we conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable, we shall dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the arguments raised in Hall’s supplemental brief. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Hall and several cohorts were arrested for robbing two separate banks at gunpoint in 2008 and were charged with multiple offenses. Hall eventually pled no contest to six counts of second degree robbery (§ 211; counts one, two, four, five, six & eight) and admitted he had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) in exchange for a stipulated term of 30 years in prison and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. The trial court sentenced Hall to 30 years as follows: the upper term of five years on count one, doubled to 10 years for the prior strike, and a consecutive term of two years each (one-third the midterm, doubled) on counts two, four, five, six, and eight, and two consecutive terms of five years each for the prior serious felony enhancements. Hall appealed, and this court reduced a crime prevention fine under section 1202.5 but otherwise affirmed the judgment as to him. (People v. Hall (May 22, 2014, C069609) [nonpub. opn.].) The judgment became final in 2014. After serving over a decade of his sentence, Hall filed a pro. per. motion in August 2024 to modify his sentence by striking the two 5-year prior serious felony enhancements under Senate Bill 1393, which gave trial courts discretion to dismiss prior serious felony enhancements, and Assembly Bill 1618, which codified prior Supreme Court precedent