People v. Thomas CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Aug 24, 2020 No. B299481Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the defendant's motion to reduce fines and assessments because the defendant's underlying appeal was not limited solely to those issues, rendering the trial court's order nonappealable.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to consider a motion to reduce fines and assessments under Penal Code section 1237.2 while an appeal was pending.
Whether the trial court's order denying the motion is appealable.

Disposition. Dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion and therefore dismiss the appeal.”

“Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s motion to reduce his fines and assessments, the order denying the motion is nonappealable, and the appeal from that order must be dismissed.”

Filed 8/24/20 P. v. Thomas CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B299481

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA066546) v.

DEMONTE ANTONE THOMAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daviann L. Mitchell, Judge. Dismissed. Benjamin Owens, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Chung L. Mar and Rene Judkiewicz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Demonte Antone Thomas appeals from a postjudgment order denying his motion to reduce his fines and assessments, pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).1 We conclude that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider the motion and therefore dismiss the appeal.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Underlying Criminal Proceedings

The underlying facts in this case were discussed in a prior appeal. (People v. Thomas (B287376, Feb. 19, 2019) [nonpub. opn.].) We summarize the relevant facts as follows: A jury convicted defendant of first degree murder (Pen. Code,2 § 187, subd. (a)) and found that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm causing great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). On January 5, 2018, the trial court sentenced defendant to 50 years to life in state prison. The trial court also imposed: a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a parole revocation restitution fine of $10,000, which was

People v. Thomas CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B299481

DEMONTE ANTONE THOMAS,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

KIM, J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief