California Court of Appeal Sep 10, 2020 No. E072959Unpublished
Filed 9/10/20 P. v. Wilson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E072959
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF079858)
LESTER HARLAND WILSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Eric A. Keen, Judge.
Affirmed.
Mark D. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Alana Cohen
Butler and TeresaTorreblanca, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Lester Harland Wilson was sentenced to death and his
direct appeal to the California Supreme Court is currently pending. After the provisions
of Senate Bill No. 1437 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) went into effect, defendant petitioned the
superior court pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.95 to vacate his first degree murder
ch. 1015, § 4), which permits persons previously convicted of first or second degree
murder under the felony-murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine,
but who could not be so convicted under the amendments enacted by Senate Bill
No. 1437, to petition the superior court to vacate their murder convictions and to
resentence them on any remaining counts.
1 The court has reviewed appellant’s request for judicial notice filed November 14, 2019. On December 2, 2019, we reserved ruling on the request for consideration with the appeal. We now grant defendant’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the Supreme Court docket in his pending appeal. (Evid. Code, §§ 452, 459.)
3
On January 24, 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing in the superior
court requesting relief under Penal Code section 1170.95. The district attorney opposed
the petition, arguing Senate Bill No. 1437 was unconstitutional.2 The trial court
appointed counsel for defendant, but counsel filed no written reply to the opposition.
At the hearing on the petition, the prosecutor argued that, even if the court were to
conclude Senate Bill No. 1437 was constitutional, the opinion of the Supreme Court
affirming defendant’s first degree murder conviction demonstrated defendant beat,
tortured, and murdered the victim, so he was not eligible for relief under Penal Code
section 1170.95. The trial court asked, “So it seems like he’s the actual killer?” The
prosecutor answered, “Yes,” and defendant’s appointed attorney replied, “I have no
reason to doubt what [the prosecutor] said based upon my reading of the case.”
Therefore, the trial court denied the petition, “without prejudice.” Defendant timely
appealed.
II.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant argues the superior court lost jurisdiction over his case once
the appeal from his sentence of death was perfected, and it therefore lacked jurisdiction to
make any ruling on his petition. He contends the order denying the petition must be
vacated. The People respond that defendant did not object to the ruling, and he agreed
2This court recently rejected the same arguments made by the prosecutor and concluded Senate Bill No. 1437 is constitutional. (People v. Johns (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 46.)
4
with the prosecutor that his petition failed to make a prima facie showing of relief, so he
“should not be permitted to complain on appeal when he agreed that the petition should
be denied.” In addition, the People argue that, even if defendant did not forfeit his claim
of error, there was no error because the order denying defendant’s petition did not affect
the judgment on appeal. We agree.
Generally, “[t]he filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in
the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur.”
(People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554.) Thus, the filing of a valid notice of appeal
deprives the trial court of jurisdiction to make any order affecting the judgment. (In re
Osslo (1958) 51 Cal.2d 371, 379-380.)
There is little question the trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s
petition for resentencing because such an order would have affected the judgment of
death that is on appeal or interfered with the Supreme Court’s exclusive appellate
jurisdiction. However, the automatic stay on appeal did not prevent the trial court from
denying the petition without prejudice (whether on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction)
because the order will have no effect whatsoever on the judgment. (Townsel v. Superior
Court (1999) 20 Cal.4th 1084, 1089-1091 [trial court had jurisdiction to order appointed
appellate counsel to have no contact with jurors because the order addressed collateral or
supplemental issues unrelated to judgment of death on appeal, and the order did not
interfere with Supreme Court’s jurisdiction].)
Therefore, we find no error and affirm the order.
5
III.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1170.95 is affirmed. The denial of defendant’s petition is without prejudice to
him filing a new one in the future that addresses the same arguments made in the instant
petition.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J. We concur:
FIELDS J.
MENETREZ J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court did not err in denying a petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95 without prejudice, as the denial did not affect the judgment currently on appeal or interfere with the Supreme Court's jurisdiction.
Issues
Did the trial court lack jurisdiction to rule on a Penal Code section 1170.95 petition while the defendant's death penalty appeal was pending before the Supreme Court?
Did the trial court's denial of the petition without prejudice constitute an order affecting the judgment on appeal?
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“the automatic stay on appeal did not prevent the trial court from denying the petition without prejudice (whether on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction) because the order will have no effect whatsoever on the judgment.”