People v. Lick CA3

Filed 6/26/23 P. v. Lick CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096741

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MAN-CR-FE- 2020-0005678) v.

DANIEL MIRANDA LICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Daniel Miranda Lick pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and was sentenced to three years in state prison on June 6, 2022. After defendant filed a notice of appeal, the trial court set aside defendant’s plea and reinstated the murder charge. Defendant argues the trial court lacked jurisdiction to do so because of his pending appeal. We agree, concluding that defendant’s notice of appeal divested the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. We vacate the trial court’s actions subsequent to defendant filing his notice of appeal and reinstate the sentence imposed on June 6, 2022.

1

Defendant’s brief presents no issue as to the June 6, 2022, sentence, and we therefore affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 Defendant was charged with murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) and ultimately pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)). The facts of the underlying crime are not relevant to the issues on appeal, and we do not recount them. On June 6, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant to the lower term of three years in state prison with 826 days of presentence credit. Defendant filed a notice of appeal on August 5, 2022, alleging sentencing error, ineffective assistance of counsel, and due process violations. Following the filing of the notice of appeal, the trial court scheduled a hearing for August 29, 2022. At the hearing, the trial court indicated it calendared the matter “because Mr. Miranda Lick filed a notice of appeal with the Third District Court of Appeal, which was forwarded to me.” “Mr. Miranda Lick made serious allegations against [defense counsel]. He spent a page attacking the integrity of this Court, which hasn’t happened to me during the 23 years I have been practicing and on the bench. But Mr. Miranda Lick is the first to do that. You know, I’m not a judge to get in the way of a plea deal. So, I let that deal go through against, perhaps, my better judgment. And certainly, I imposed the lower term against my better judgment. But [defense counsel] was persuasive, and I went along with it. [¶] But Mr. Miranda Lick has filed this notice of appeal. The reality is that I still retain jurisdiction over this case, because it has not been 120 days since the imposition of sentence. I am going to set aside the plea deal. The original murder charges will be reinstated. All charges will be reinstated. We’ll start back at the position we were in before Mr. Miranda Lick entered his plea.” Also at the