Trial court orders denying inmates’ petitions to strike their prior prison term enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 were nonappealable. The defendants, each currently serving consecutive terms for in-prison offenses, filed separate postjudgment requests to strike prior prison term enhancements. The petitions were denied and they appealed. Held: Appeals dismissed. After imposition of the prior prison term enhancements on these defendants, former Penal Code section 667.5(b) was amended (SB 136) to limit its application to prison terms served for sexually violent offenses. Later, SB 483 made SB 136 retroactive by creating a mechanism and timetable to strike such enhancements for those persons currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an invalid enhancement (Pen. Code, § 1171.1, now § 1172.75). However, the consecutive sentences the defendants are currently serving for in-prison offenses do not include prior prison term enhancements. Further, section 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to file a request to strike the enhancement. The defendants had no statutory authority to seek relief, so the trial court lacked jurisdiction over their requests. As no substantial right was affected, there is no jurisdiction for appeal (Pen. Code, § 1237(b)). [Editor’s Notes: (1) The court stated it “would grant habeas corpus relief if it were shown that a prisoner was confined solely because of a now invalid prior prison term.” (2) The court granted appellants’ petition for rehearing to address their argument that their petitions were filed through appointed counsel in accord with a procedure the parties agreed upon after CDCR submitted its resentencing list to the court. Even if appellants submitted their petitions based on an agreement, the petitions would still have been unauthorized “freestanding petitions.”]