People v. Crites

Filed 4/14/22 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162940 v. GLENN DOUGLAS CRITES, (Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. 8098) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant, whose judgment for conviction for murder has been final for over 40 years, appeals an order denying his motion to correct information contained in his presentencing probation report. He contends the trial court erred in concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider his motion. We reverse. Background Defendant was convicted in August 1977 of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187) receiving stolen property (§ 496), and auto theft (Veh. Code, former § 10851). The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term as prescribed under the law at the time. His conviction was affirmed (People v. Crites (Oct. 17, 1979, A17358) [nonpub. opn.].]) and the remittitur was issued in October 1979. In March 2021, defendant filed a motion entitled, “motion for discovery and/or correction/expungement of erroneous information affecting ‘liberty

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.

1

interests’ and ‘due process’ ” in the superior court. His motion sought to correct information in his probation report regarding his alleged commission of rape offenses in Oregon. A clerk of the court rejected the motion, stating it lacked jurisdiction to consider the post-judgment motion. On May 17, 2021, defendant filed a document arguing the court had jurisdiction to consider his claim under Code of Civil Procedure section 916, subdivision (b) and a motion for reconsideration. The court denied the motion, stating it lacked the authority to consider the motion under People v. Davis (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 1353 and People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330. Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Discussion In denying defendant’s motion, the court relied on the long-standing rule that “ ‘[t]here is no statutory authority for a trial court to entertain a postjudgment motion that is unrelated to any proceeding then pending before the court. [Citation.] Indeed, a motion is not an independent remedy. It is ancillary to an on-going action and “ ‘implies the pendency of a suit between the parties and is confined to incidental matters in the progress of the cause. As the rule is sometimes expressed, a motion relates to some question collateral to the main object of the action and is connected with, and dependent on, the principal remedy.’ ” [Citation.] In most cases, after the judgment has become final, there is nothing pending to which a motion may attach.’ ” (People v. Picklesimer, supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 337.) Defendant contends, nonetheless, that the court had jurisdiction under section 1203.01, subdivision (a) as interpreted by In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th