People v. Grech CA3

Filed 8/14/23 P. v. Grech CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097206

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE019588)

v.

SONNY LOREN GRECH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Sonny Loren Grech asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

BACKGROUND On August 9, 2017, defendant had methamphetamine and a loaded, operable .380- caliber handgun. Defendant pled no contest to possession of methamphetamine while armed and admitted a prior serious felony conviction allegation. On April 30, 2019, the trial court sentenced defendant to two years in prison.

1

On October 7, 2022, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 483) and Penal Code section 1172.75.1 The trial court denied the motion and defendant appealed. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) We do not have jurisdiction to consider this appeal. (People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.) “The right to appeal is entirely statutory . . . .” (People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 254.) “The general rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and execution of the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.’ ” (People v, King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 634.) “And, ‘[i]f the trial court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or modify a sentence, an order denying such a motion is nonappealable, and any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.’ ” (Ibid.) Section 1172.75 is an exception to the general rule that a court lacks jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence after execution of the sentence has begun. Senate Bill No. 483 added what is now section 1172.75 to the Penal Code. Subdivision (a) of that section declares: “Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.”