Opinion
H047534
11-16-2021
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACY DONELL LEE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
(Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1512240)
We resolve this case by memorandum opinion under California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. (See also People v. Garcia (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 847, 853-855.)
Greenwood, P. J.
A jury found defendant Tracy Donell Lee guilty on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon, among other counts, and found he had suffered two prior strike convictions. In 2015, the trial court sentenced Lee to 50 years in state prison and imposed various fines and fees. We affirmed the judgment of conviction on appeal in September 2019. (People v. Lee (Sept. 10, 2019, H042951) [non pub. opn.].)
We grant Lee's request for judicial notice of that opinion. The facts of the offenses are immaterial to this appeal.
In August 2019, while his appeal was pending in this court, Lee filed a motion in propria persona in the trial court to reduce the restitution fines from that conviction under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. The trial court denied the motion on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction over any motion to reduce the fines. The trial court further ruled that, in any event, the claim failed on the merits.
Lee now appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion to reduce the restitution fine. The Attorney General moves to dismiss the appeal on the ground the denial is nonappealable. We agree with the Attorney General.
The general rule is 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, thereby divesting the trial court of jurisdiction over anything affecting the judgment. (People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1064.) Lee contends nonetheless that the trial court had jurisdiction over his motion to reduce the fines under Penal Code section 1237.2 (section 1237.2). Section 1237.2 provides in part, "The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant's request for correction." (§ 1237.2.) The next sentence, however, renders this section inapplicable here: "This section only applies in cases where the erroneous imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs are the sole issue on appeal." (Ibid.) Lee had raised numerous other claims unrelated to fines and fees in his direct appeal, so under the plain language of section 1237.2, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on Lee's motion while the underlying judgment was still on appeal in this court.
Another court of appeal applied the plain language of section 1237.2 to reach this same holding. (People v. Jenkins (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 30, 33 (Jenkins) [trial court lacked jurisdiction to rule on motion to vacate fines and fees under section 1237.2 while the judgment was on appeal because the appeal raised other claims].) Lee argues Jenkins was wrongly decided, and he contends we should look past the plain language of section 1237.2 to hold the trial court had jurisdiction in this case. We decline to do so." 'Our fundamental task in interpreting a statute is to determine the Legislature's intent so as to effectuate the law's purpose. We first examine the statutory language, giving it a plain and commonsense meaning. We do not examine that language in isolation, but in the context of the statutory framework as a whole in order to determine its scope and purpose and to harmonize the various parts of the enactment. If the language is clear, courts must generally follow its plain meaning unless a literal interpretation would result in absurd consequences the Legislature did not intend.'" (People v. Simmons (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 778, 790.) The language of section 1237.2 is unambiguous as applied here, and the plain meaning of that language is not absurd. Jenkins properly applied the statute on this point.
Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction over the motion, the denial of the motion is a nonappealable order. "If 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." (People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084.) We will therefore dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: DANNER, J., LIE, J.