People v. Rojas CA2/7

Filed 9/13/23 P. v. Rojas CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B324281

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA038816) v.

DAVID GILBERT ROJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Amy N. Carter, Judge. Dismissed. John L. Staley, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Rama R. Maline, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

In 1999 a jury convicted David Gilbert Rojas on nine counts of robbery. The trial court sentenced Rojas as a third strike offender to a prison term of 271 years eight months to life. In 2022 Rojas, representing himself, filed a petition for resentencing under recently enacted ameliorative legislation. The superior court resentenced Rojas under Penal Code former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75),1 struck two one-year prior prison term enhancements (execution of which the trial court had stayed), and otherwise denied Rojas’s petition. Rojas argues that, when the superior court granted his petition under section 1172.75, he was entitled to a full resentencing and that the court, in addition to striking the two one-year enhancements, should have exercised its discretion whether to strike enhancements for prior serious felony convictions and personal use of a firearm and whether to impose concurrent or consecutive terms on the robbery counts. We conclude that, because Rojas was not authorized to file a petition under section 1172.75, the superior court lacked jurisdiction to rule on his petition. Therefore, the superior court’s order is not appealable, and we dismiss Rojas’s appeal.