People v. Villescas CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Jan 5, 2023 No. B320061Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that a defendant cannot file a freestanding petition to modify a sentence after the judgment has become final and execution of the sentence has begun.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a freestanding petition to strike a prior prison term enhancement after the judgment became final.
Whether the appellate court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from the denial of such a petition.
Whether the court should treat the appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude defendant has appealed from a nonappealable order.”

“the trial court did not have jurisdiction to rule on defendant’s freestanding petition to modify this sentence; under King, neither do we.”

“neither his unauthorized petition nor habeas corpus empowers defendant to skip to the front of the line our Legislature has already created and prioritized.”

Filed 1/5/23 P. v. Villescas CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B320061

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA044837) v.

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Raul A. Sahagun, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant

Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Alberto Villescas (defendant) appeals from the trial court’s order denying his petition to strike his prior prison term enhancement pursuant to newly enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3) (Senate Bill 483). We conclude defendant has appealed from a nonappealable order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In October 1998, defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)).1 The trial court found true the allegation that defendant had previously suffered two prior “strike” convictions and one prior prison term. (§§ 667, 667.5, subd. (b), & 1170.12.) The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for a total term of 26 years to life—two concurrent 25-years-to-life terms plus one year for the prior prison term. Defendant appealed, and a prior panel of this division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. (People v. Villescas (May 2, 2000, B129758) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2021, the Legislature passed, and the Governor signed, Senate Bill 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). Senate Bill 483 added section 1171.1, which was later renumbered as section 1172.75. The legislation renders “legally invalid” “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any

People v. Villescas CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B320061

ALBERTO VILLESCAS,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief