92 Cal.App.5th 186
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background:
- In 2001 Hodges was convicted of kidnapping, three counts of forcible oral copulation, two counts of assault with a firearm, and felon-in-possession; jury found firearm use and three prior serious felonies. He was sentenced as a third‑strike offender to 230 years to life.
- Hodges’s conviction was affirmed on direct appeal in 2005.
- In May 2022 Hodges filed a postjudgment motion (construed as a habeas petition) arguing his three prior strikes all arose from the same underlying case and his sentence therefore was unauthorized and should be treated as a second strike.
- The trial court denied relief, finding each prior crime was distinct and independently punishable; Hodges appealed from that denial.
- Appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende-style brief raising no issues; Hodges filed two pro se supplemental briefs challenging his sentence and alleging appellate counsel was ineffective.
- The Court of Appeal dismissed the purported appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the denial of the habeas petition was not appealable and Wende review did not apply to non-first appeals.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appealability of denial of postjudgment motion | Denial of the habeas-style motion is not appealable; trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify sentence after execution begun | Sentence unauthorized because all three priors arise from same case; should be a second‑strike sentence | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; habeas denial not appealable |
| Applicability of Wende/Anders independent review | Wende/Anders review applies only to a first appeal as of right | Requests independent review of record (invoking Wende) | Wende/Anders review is not required for appeals from postconviction orders |
| Ineffective assistance / request to reappoint counsel | Appellate counsel declared he read the record and corresponded with defendant; no evidence of inadequate representation | Counsel ineffective for not meeting in person, not raising Vargas, and not challenging DNA; asks for new counsel | Claim rejected: defendant made no showing of inadequate representation or irreconcilable conflict |
| Trial court jurisdiction / timeliness to alter sentence decades later | Trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain motion filed over 20 years after judgment; an order in such circumstances cannot affect substantial rights | Argues sentence was unauthorized and should be vacated despite delay | Trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant relief; denial cannot be appealed under statutory appealability rules |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (independent appellate review when appointed counsel files a no‑issue brief on a first appeal)
- People v. Delgadillo, 14 Cal.5th 216 (Wende/Anders review limited to first appeals as of right)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (Anders/Wende applies only to a first appeal)
- People v. King, 77 Cal.App.5th 629 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify sentence after judgment and execution begun)
- People v. Mazurette, 24 Cal.4th 789 (appealability requires statutory authorization)
- People v. Mayfield, 14 Cal.4th 668 (standard for replacing appointed counsel: inadequate representation or irreconcilable conflict)
- People v. Garrett, 67 Cal.App.4th 1419 (denial of habeas petition is not appealable)
- In re Hochberg, 2 Cal.3d 870 (denial of habeas corpus is not appealable)
- People v. Vargas, 59 Cal.4th 635 (case cited by defendant concerning treatment of prior convictions)