People v. Cain CA3

Filed 11/25/25 P. v. Cain CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, C102661

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CR000493)

v.

RAY RAY CAIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

The trial court summarily denied defendant Ray Ray Cain’s motion that he personally filed to modify his sentence based on Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess. (Assembly Bill 600) and Senate Bill No. 1393 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 1393). The court expressly declined to exercise its discretion under Penal Code section 1172.1 to recall and resentence defendant on its own motion. Defendant appeals, and his appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216. Counsel

1

acknowledged there may be a question regarding the appealability of the challenged order. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising several claims of error at his trial. We conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable, so we dismiss the appeal without reaching the merits of the arguments raised in defendant’s supplemental brief. Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. BACKGROUND In September 2022, a jury found defendant guilty of murder involving the infliction of torture (§§ 187, subd. (a) & 190.2, subd. (a)(18)) and reckless evasion of a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2. subd. (a)). Defendant then admitted two strike convictions and a serious or violent felony conviction. Later in September 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to life without the possibility of parole plus five years. Defendant appealed, and in March 2024, this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Cain (March 22, 2024, C097421) [nonpub. opn.], review den. May 29, 2024, S284693.) Remittitur issued on May 30, 2024. In October 2024, defendant filed a petition for resentencing. Relying on section 1172.1, defendant asked the trial court to strike the sentencing enhancements and to reduce or modify his sentence in the interests of justice. He claimed his constitutional rights were violated by juror misconduct. In November 2024, the court summarily denied defendant’s motion and declined to exercise its discretion to recall and resentence defendant on its own motion under section 1172.1. Defendant timely appeals. DISCUSSION Before we can consider the issues raised in defendant’s supplemental brief (see People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 231-232), we must first determine whether the trial court’s order summarily denying defendant’s postjudgment motion to modify his sentence is appealable. (See People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254.)