Because Senate Bill No. 620 (granting courts discretion to dismiss firearm use enhancements) is not retroactive to cases whose judgments were final on its effective date, defendant’s appeal must be dismissed as from a nonappealable order. In 2015, Fuimaono was convicted of assault with a firearm, and his sentence was enhanced under Penal Code section 12022.5, subdivision (a) for the personal use of a firearm. The judgment became final in 2015. In 2018, he filed a motion to be resentenced within the provisions of SB 620, which amended Penal Code sections 12022.5 and 12022.53 to grant the trial court discretion to dismiss or stay the firearm enhancements, effective January 1, 2018. The trial court denied the motion, concluding the amendment did not apply to Fuimaono because his conviction was final before SB 620’s effective date. He appealed. Held: Appeal dismissed. An order made after judgment affecting a defendant’s substantial rights is appealable. But once a judgment is rendered, except for limited statutory exceptions, the sentencing court is without jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence. None of the exceptions applied in this case, and SB 620 contains no language authorizing resentencing of convictions that have become final. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify Fuimaono’s sentence, denial of his motion to modify his sentence did not affect his substantial rights. The order denying the motion to modify the sentence was therefore not an appealable order, and the appeal was dismissed.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/C087336.PDF