People v. Terp CA1/5

California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 2022 No. A164689Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the defendant failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the judgment and failed to identify an appealable order entered after judgment.

Issues

Whether the court has jurisdiction over an appeal filed after the 60-day deadline for challenging a judgment.
Whether an order dropping a matter from the court calendar constitutes an appealable order under Penal Code section 1237, subdivision (b).

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Our independent review of the record reveals that Terp has not filed a timely appeal from an appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.”

Filed 12/2/22 P. v. Terp 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164689 v. CHAD W. TERP, (Sonoma County Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. Nos. SCR-747034-1, SCR-738398-1)

Chad W. Terp’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Our independent review of the record reveals that Terp has not filed a timely appeal from an appealable order. We dismiss the appeal.

BACKGROUND

Terp entered plea agreements in two criminal cases (Nos. SCR-747034-1 & SCR-738398-1) filed by the Sonoma County District Attorney. On November 5, 2021, Terp was sentenced to the negotiated aggregate term of three years and eight months on both cases. The trial court imposed a split sentence (Pen. Code, § 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B)):1 Terp was to serve the first two years in county jail and the remainder of his sentence on mandatory supervision. Terp was awarded 89 total days of presentence custody credits (45 days actual/44 days conduct).

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

At the same time, Terp was also resentenced, on a case from Napa County, to a concurrent term of 16 months. His custody credits on that case were stated to be 165 days (83 days actual/82 days custody), which was the number of credits calculated at his initial sentencing in Napa County Superior Court.

About a month later, the trial court called the matter because there was confusion regarding custody credits awarded on the Napa case. Defense counsel indicated that she would request a transcript and add the case to calendar if any recalculation was needed.

People v. Terp CA1/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

AI Brief