Skip to content
Name: People v. Dynes
Case #: F075158
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 02/15/2018
Summary

A denial of an ex-parte request for resentencing, modification, and reclassification under the parole provisions of Proposition 57 is not an appealable order. In 2014, defendant was sentenced to prison for an aggregate second strike term of eight years four months based on a number of offenses and enhancements. In November 2016, voters passed Proposition 57, adding section 32 to article I of the California Constitution. Section 32 provides, in part, that any person convicted of a nonviolent felony offense and sentenced to state prison shall be eligible for parole consideration after completing the full term for his or her primary offense, which it defines as the longest term of imprisonment imposed by the court for any offense, excluding the imposition of an enhancement, consecutive sentence, or alternative sentence. It also gives CDCR authority to award credits earned for good behavior and approved rehabilitative or educational achievements, and directs CDCR to adopt regulations in furtherance of section 32’s provisions. In December 2016, defendant sent a letter to the superior court asking for a list of all violent felonies that had been changed to nonviolent felonies, and whether the list included one of his offenses, second degree robbery. The trial court treated the letter as an ex-parte request for resentencing, modification of sentence, reclassification, or recalculation of credits pursuant to Proposition 57 and concluded that section 32 did not authorize trial courts to entertain or grant such motions. It denied the application, stating that the defendant must seek relief through the CDCR. He appealed. Held: Appeal dismissed. A criminal defendant may only appeal from a final judgment of conviction or from any order made after judgment, affecting the substantial rights of the defendant. Section 32 did not create or authorize a substantial right to be resentenced, or provide a remedy by way of a statutory postjudgment motion for an inmate to file a petition with the superior court for recall or resentencing in the first instance. The superior court lacked jurisdiction to grant defendant’s request for relief under section 32, and its order denying defendant’s ex-parte request for relief is not an appealable order.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/F075158.PDF