People v. Green CA2/7

Filed 11/9/20 P. v. Green CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B302461

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA031149) v.

CLAUDELL GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Yvonne Sanchez, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Carlo Andreani, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Claudell Green appeals from two orders denying his postjudgment motions to modify his sentence. Because the superior court lacked jurisdiction to hear Green’s motions, its orders denying the motions are not appealable. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury convicted Green in 1995 of three counts of robbery, two counts of possession of an assault weapon and one count of carjacking and found true several related firearm-use enhancement allegations. Following several appeals and remands for resentencing, in April 2004 Green was sentenced as a third strike offender to an aggregate indeterminate state prison term of 94 years to life. A series of unsuccessful postjudgment challenges followed. On August 5, 2019 and September 17, 2019 Green, representing himself, filed nearly identical motions to correct sentencing error. He also filed a “Notice of Supplemental Changes to Motion for Sentencing Error.” The superior court denied Green’s motions on September 15, 2019 and September 18, 2019, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to modify Green’s sentence. Green appealed both orders. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent Green on appeal. After review of the record, counsel filed an opening brief in which no issues were raised. Appellate counsel advised Green he could personally submit a supplemental brief raising any contentions or issues he wished us to consider. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 277-284; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118- 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)