Error and/or relief
At the resentencing hearing conducted after the remittitur issued, the trial court declined to strike or reduce the Penal Code section 12022.53(d) firearm enhancement and reimposed the sentence of 50 years to life. The parties agree that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct the earlier hearing (while the appeal was up in higher court, the trial court permitted the prosecution to file new circumstance in aggravation) and the matter must be remanded for a new resentencing hearing. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for a new sentencing hearing conducted in accordance with Senate Bill 567.
First Holding:
It is well established that the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur.
Authority:
People v. Perez (1979) 23 Cal.3d 545, 554
People v. Burhop (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 808, 813
Second Holding:
This jurisdictional rule serves to protect the appellate court’s jurisdiction by preserving the status quo until the appeal is decided, and prevents the trial court from rendering an appeal futile by altering the appealed judgment by conducting other proceedings that may affect it.
Authority:
People v. Awad (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 215, 224
Third Holding:
During the premature hearing, the trial court permitted the prosecution to amend the information to add a factor in aggravation pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(1), and accepted defendant’s waiver of his right to trial and admission to the new allegation. Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to conduct this hearing, all proceedings conducted during that hearing—including the amendment of the information and defendant’s subsequent admission—are null and void.
Authority:
People v. Williams (1999) 77 Cal.App.4th 436, 446-447