People v. Fuimaono
243 Cal. Rptr. 3d 545
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Andrew Taylor Fuimaono was convicted (Feb 19, 2015) of assault with a firearm and found to have personally used a firearm; sentenced to an aggregate 13 years on March 19, 2015.
- On May 17, 2018, defendant moved to be resentenced under Senate Bill No. 620, which gave trial courts discretion to strike or stay certain firearm enhancements.
- Defendant asked the court to stay the firearm enhancement added by section 12022.5 pursuant to SB 620.
- The trial court summarily denied the motion, concluding SB 620 did not apply because defendant’s conviction was final and the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence postjudgment.
- Defendant appealed the denial; appointed counsel sought Wende review of the record to identify arguable issues on appeal.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding the order denying the postjudgment motion was not appealable because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify a final sentence under SB 620.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could resentence a defendant with a final judgment under SB 620 | Prosecution (People) argued the court lacked authority to resentence absent statutory authorization | Fuimaono argued SB 620 authorized sentencing courts to stay or strike firearm enhancements and should apply to him | Denied — SB 620 contains no express authorization to resentence final judgments; trial court lacked jurisdiction, so denial was not appealable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedure for appointed counsel to request record review for arguable issues)
- People v. Mendez, 209 Cal.App.4th 32 (appeal dismissed where order postjudgment was nonappealable)
- People v. Turrin, 176 Cal.App.4th 1200 (court lacks jurisdiction to modify sentence after finality absent statutory exception)
- Portillo v. Superior Court, 10 Cal.App.4th 1829 (trial court without jurisdiction to vacate or modify sentence after judgment except by limited statutes)
- Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (court’s authority to recall sentence on own motion is time-limited)
- People v. Chlad, 6 Cal.App.4th 1719 (absence of statutory authority precludes resentencing of final judgments)
- Teal v. Superior Court, 60 Cal.4th 595 (Legislature may provide postjudgment resentencing remedies when it creates a substantial right)