People v. Hines CA2/2 ( 2024 )

Filed 2/13/24 P. v. Hines CA2/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE, B328844
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. TA078425)
v.
DEJUAN HINES,
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT:
Defendant and appellant Dejuan Hines appeals from the
trial court order denying his petition to vacate the illegal and/or
unauthorized sentence enhancements and for a resentencing
hearing. Defendant’s appointed counsel found no arguable issues
and filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.
Thereafter, defendant filed a supplemental brief.
“As we must, we first consider whether we have jurisdiction
to decide this appeal. [Citation.] We conclude that we do not.”
(People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.)
Defendant was convicted in 2006; two years later, we
affirmed his conviction and sentence on direct appeal. (People v.
Hines (Feb. 20, 2008, B192978) [nonpub. opn.].) “The general
rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and execution of the
sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to
vacate or modify the sentence.’ [Citations.] And, ‘[i]f the trial
court does not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to vacate or
modify a sentence, an order denying such a motion is
nonappealable, and any appeal from such an order must be
dismissed.’ [Citations.]” (People v. King, supra, 77 Cal.App.5th
at p. 634; see also id. at pp. 636–637 [“Courts have long
recognized the general common law rule that ‘a trial court is
deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once
execution of the sentence has commenced. [Citations.] Where
the trial court relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses
jurisdiction over that defendant.’ [Citations.]”].)
While there are exceptions to this rule (see People v. King,
supra, 77 Cal.App.5th at p. 637), none appears applicable here,
and defendant does not argue otherwise in his supplemental
brief. People v. Le (2015) 61 Cal.4th 416, upon which defendant
heavily relies, is distinguishable for the simple reason that Le
involved a direct appeal from the judgment. (Id. at pp. 420–422.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
____________________________________________________________
LUI, P. J. ASHMANN-GERST, J. CHAVEZ, J.
2