Automated Summary
Key Facts
Darryl Erwin Dominguez pled guilty to one count of robbery in 2022 and admitted prior convictions including a serious felony, a strike, and an aggravating factor. He was sentenced to 15 years in prison. In 2024, he requested modification of his sentence under Senate Bill 1393 to remove a 5-year prior enhancement. The trial court denied the motion, citing that SB 1393 does not apply retroactively to cases final on appeal. Dominguez's subsequent appeal was dismissed as the trial court's order was not appealable under the law.
Issues
Did the trial court err in denying appellant's motion for modification of sentence pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 1393?
Holdings
- The trial court's order denying Dominguez's motion for modification of sentence under Senate Bill 1393 is not appealable. The court correctly concluded that Senate Bill 1393 does not apply retroactively to Dominguez's case, as the amendments were effective January 1, 2019, and his sentencing occurred in September 2022 without requesting the dismissal of the enhancement. Appeals from such orders do not affect substantial rights and lack authority to rule on the merits.
- The appeal is dismissed because the trial court's minute order denying Dominguez's request for recall and modification of sentence is not an appealable order. Section 1172.1 does not grant defendants the right to file petitions for recall and resentencing, and courts are not required to respond to such requests. As a result, appeals from these orders cannot proceed.
Remedies
The appeal is dismissed.
Legal Principles
The court applied the Literal Rule of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that Senate Bill 1393 amendments to Penal Code section 667, subdivision (a) do not apply retroactively to cases where the sentence was finalized before the law's effective date. This interpretation was based on the plain terms of the statute, which explicitly limits retroactive application to cases not yet final on appeal. Additionally, the court cited Penal Code section 1172.1, noting that defendants are not entitled to file petitions for recall and resentencing under this provision, as the statute only permits courts to act on their own motion.
Precedent Name
- People v. Delgadillo
- Anders v. California
- People v. Wende
- People v. Faustinos
- People v. Garcia
Cited Statute
- Penal Code
- California Rules of Court
Judge Name
- Kelety, J.
- O'Rourke, Acting P. J.
- Do, J.
Passage Text
- we conclude the trial court's order is not appealable and we therefore dismiss the appeal.
- The amendments to section 667, subdivision (a), had been in effect for nearly four years at the time of his sentencing in September 2022.
- A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.