Opinion
C086705
10-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. REGINALD CHAVIS, SR., Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. CR104529)
This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. In a recently filed opinion, we dismissed the appeal of defendant Reginald Chavis, Sr. from an order dismissing his request to recall his sentence, on the ground that the order appealed from was nonappealable. (People v. Reginald Chavis, Sr. (July 20, 2018, C086212) [nonpub. opn.] (Chavis).) In this appeal, he seeks review of the trial court's order denying his motion to reconsider its previous order. We shall dismiss the appeal.
I. BACKGROUND
As stated in Chavis, supra, at pages 1-2, defendant was sentenced in 1991 to a state prison sentence of seven years to life with the possibility of parole plus an eight-year determinate term for the crime of attempted murder with personal infliction of great bodily injury and personal use of a firearm, committed at age 19. We affirmed the judgment in 1992. (People v. Timothy Demetrius Johnson & Reggie Chavis (June 30, 1992, C011920) [nonpub. opn.] (Johnson & Chavis).) According to our opinion, defendant, acting with the codefendant, personally shot a female victim numerous times at close range with a shotgun in Sacramento County, then left her in a roadside ditch. She suffered the amputation of her right arm, among other injuries. (Id. at pp. 2-4.)
On August 18, 2017, defendant sought recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d) (section 1170(d)). (Chavis, supra, C086212, at p. 2.) On November 21, 2017, the trial court dismissed defendant's request, finding it lacked jurisdiction to recall the sentence because defendant made his request far after the 120-day deadline for such requests under section 1170(d)(1), and that in any event defendant was not a juvenile offender or a person sentenced to life without parole, as required for relief under section 1170(d). (Chavis, supra, at pp. 2-3.) We dismissed defendant's appeal from the trial court's order, finding that since the court had no jurisdiction to entertain defendant's request, its dismissal of the request could not have affected his substantial rights. (People v. Chlad (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1719, 1725-1726; see People v. Loper (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1155, 1165-1166.) (Chavis, supra, at pp. 4-5.)
On January 16, 2018, defendant renewed his motion for resentencing in the trial court. On February 20, 2018, the trial court denied the motion for reconsideration, reasoning that defendant had again failed to show the court had jurisdiction to entertain the motion for resentencing or that he was a person eligible for relief under section 1170(d). He now appeals from that order. Defendant's appeal states no basis on which he believes an order denying a motion for reconsideration is appealable.
II. DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.
For the reasons we dismissed defendant's appeal in Chavis, supra, C086212, we dismiss this appeal.
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J. We concur: /S/_________
HULL, Acting P. J. /S/_________
MAURO, J.