People v. Long CA4/2

• Court: California Court of Appeal
• Decided: May 5, 2025
• Docket: E084611
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Filed 5/5/25 P. v. Long CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E084611

v. (Super.Ct.No. FWV013260)

RAYMOND LEON LONG, JR., OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson

Uhler, Judge. Dismissed.

Raymond Long, Jr., in pro. per.; Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment by the

Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 On the court’s own motion, the appeal filed in the superior court on

September 12, 2024, from the trial court’s denial of defendant’s postjudgment

motion for resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.1 is DISMISSED

because it does not affect defendant’s substantial rights. (§ 1237, subd. (b).) The

trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant’s motion for

resentencing. (§ 1172.1, subd. (c) [“A defendant is not entitled to file a petition

seeking relief from the court under this section.”].) Since the court lacked

jurisdiction when it denied defendant’s resentencing motion, denial of the motion

could not have affected his substantial rights. (People v. Hodge (2024) 107

Cal.App.5th 985, 999 (Hodge) [“a trial court’s order declining to exercise its

discretion under section 1172.1 to recall a defendant’s sentence on its own motion

after receiving the defendant’s unauthorized request for such relief does not affect

the defendant’s substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b)”]; see also,

People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726 (Chlad).) Accordingly,

the order denying defendant's motion for resentencing is not an appealable order,

and the appeal must be dismissed. (Hodge, supra, 107 Cal.App.5th at p. 991;

Chlad, supra, 6 Cal.App.4th at p. 1725; see also, People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32

Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)

1 All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

FIELDS Acting P. J.

We concur:

RAPHAEL J.

MENETREZ J.