Opinion
E082024
04-18-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TIMOTHY SCOTT FOSSUM, Defendant and Appellant.
Timothy Scott Fossum, in pro. per.; and Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Inyo County, Nos. ICMBCRF1862474, ICMBCRF1862725 Stephen M. Place, Judge. Dismissed.
Timothy Scott Fossum, in pro. per.; and Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
FIELDS J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Timothy Scott Fossum appeals from a postjudgment order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.1 (former § 1170, subd. (d)). His appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), stating he thoroughly reviewed the record and found no arguable issues. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. We have reviewed the supplemental brief and dismiss the appeal.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On August 12, 2019, in case No. ICMBCRF1862474, defendant entered a plea agreement, pleading guilty to first degree robbery (§§ 211, 213, subd. (a)(1)), burglary (§ 459), grand theft of a firearm (§ 487, subd. (d)(2)), battery inflicting serious bodily injury (§§ 242, 243, subd. (d)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). In a separate case, case No. ICMBCRF1862725, defendant entered a plea agreement and pled guilty to assault with a deadly weapon. (§ 245, subd. (a)(1).) He also admitted two prior felony convictions. (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(1) &667 subd. (a).) In accordance with the terms of both plea agreements, the court sentenced defendant to a total term of 10 years in state prison.
On or about July 13, 2023, defendant filed an in propria persona petition for resentencing, pursuant to former sections 1170, subdivision (d)(1) and 1170.03. On August 1, 2023, the court denied the request for resentencing. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal of the denial of the resentencing petition.
DISCUSSION
Defendant was provided notice under Delgadillo and advised that counsel filed a brief stating no arguable issues could be found, and that because this is an appeal from a postconviction proceeding, this court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record, but may do so in its discretion. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) The notice advised him that he could file a supplemental brief within 30 days. Defendant filed a supplemental brief. Where a defendant has filed a supplemental brief, a court of appeal need only evaluate the specific arguments presented in the brief. (Ibid.) "The filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent review of the entire record to identify unraised issues." (Ibid.)
Unfortunately, defendant's 24-page, handwritten brief is unintelligible as to the relief requested, the legal process implicated and relied upon, and the evidence relied upon in support of the alleged claims. His brief simply lists multiple phrases (e.g., false evidence, false arrest, false imprisonment), constitutional rights, and case cites, with no relevant or intelligible explanation.
Furthermore, based on our own independent review of the record, which we undertake voluntarily in the interest of judicial economy, we determine that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate defendant's petition for resentencing under section 1172.1. Once a criminal judgment becomes final, courts no longer have jurisdiction to vacate or modify a sentence absent an exception to the jurisdictional bar. (People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381; see People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634.) There are limited exceptions to this general rule. For instance, the trial court retains jurisdiction to resentence a defendant where "specific statutory avenues" authorize defendants to seek resentencing. (Id. at p. 637.) However, section 1172.1 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); People v. Braggs (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 809, 818.) Since the court lacked jurisdiction when it denied defendant's petition, denial of the petition could not have affected his substantial rights. (People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726.) Accordingly, the order denying defendant's petition for resentencing is not an appealable order, and the appeal must be dismissed. (Id. at p. 1725; see People v. Fuimaono (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 132, 135.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J., CODRINGTON J.