People v. Stanfield CA1/5

Filed 2/9/16 P. v. Stanfield CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A146134 v. PAUL STANFIELD, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. C138696A) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2000, appellant Paul Stanfield was sentenced to a total prison term of 20 years—an upper term of 10 years for second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5, subd.(c)),1 plus two 5-year enhancements pursuant to section 667, subdivision (a). On June 25, 2015, Stanfield filed a pro se motion to reduce his sentence, citing section 1385. The trial court denied the motion, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to reduce the sentence. Assigned counsel has submitted a Wende2 brief, certifying that counsel has been unable to identify any issues for appellate review. Counsel also has submitted a declaration confirming that Stanfield has been advised of his right to personally file a supplemental brief raising any points which he wishes to call to the court’s attention. No supplemental brief has been submitted. As required, we have independently reviewed the

1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.

1

record. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 109–110.) We find no arguable issues and therefore affirm. I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In July 2000, Stanfield pleaded no contest to second degree robbery and two prior prison term sentencing enhancements under section 667, subdivision (a). Thirteen other charges, and three prior felony conviction allegations, were dismissed. He was sentenced the following November, in what appears to have been an agreed-upon disposition, to a second-strike upper term of 10 years for the robbery and an additional consecutive term of 10 years on the sentence enhancements. On June 25, 2015, Stanfield filed a pro se motion for modification of his sentence, citing section 1385 and arguing that the court could “on its own motion” modify the sentence to impose lesser punishment.3 Stanfield asked the court to reduce his sentence and to “suspend” one of the section 667, subdivision (a) enhancements. By order of July 23, 2015, the court denied the motion for lack of jurisdiction. Stanfield filed a timely notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION The trial court was correct. “Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344.) A trial court may recall a state prison sentence “within 120 days of the date of commitment on its own motion, or at any time upon the recommendation of the secretary or the Board of Parole Hearings” (§ 1170, subd. (d)), but it “does not have open-ended jurisdiction to modify a sentence; the court’s jurisdiction expires after 120 days.” (People v. Willie (2005) 133 Cal.App.4th 43, 49.)