39 Cal.App.5th 148
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- In 1994 defendant Montellano participated in a gang shooting that resulted in a murder and an attempted murder; he later evaded arrest and in 1997 committed vehicle-related offenses including evading an officer.
- In the 1997 case (VA041564) defendant was convicted of evading an officer (Veh. Code §2800.2) and, having admitted two prior strikes, was sentenced under the Three Strikes law to 25-to-life on count 2 plus enhancements.
- A separate 1998 conviction for murder/attempted murder was ordered to run consecutively to the Three Strikes sentence.
- In May 2014 Montellano petitioned for recall/resentencing under Penal Code §1170.126 (Proposition 36). In July 2018 the trial court ruled Montellano was eligible for resentencing (step one) because his murder/attempted murder prior convictions were not disqualifying priors under §1170.126, subdivision (e)(3).
- The District Attorney appealed the trial court’s eligibility determination under Penal Code §1238(a)(5); the Court of Appeal concluded the eligibility ruling was a postjudgment order but not appealable at that stage and dismissed the appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court’s eligibility finding under §1170.126 is an appealable postjudgment order under §1238(a)(5) | The People (District Attorney) argued the eligibility determination affects the People’s substantial rights because it affects enforcement of the judgment and the inmate’s status, so it is appealable under §1238(a)(5). | Montellano argued the eligibility finding is not appealable because it does not by itself modify the sentence or release the defendant. | The court held the eligibility determination is a postjudgment order but is not appealable under §1238(a)(5) because it does not by itself alter the judgment, its enforcement, or the defendant’s relationship to it. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Superior Court (Martinez), 225 Cal.App.4th 979 (2014) (addressed reviewability of eligibility determinations under §1170.126 and treated appealability discussion as dictum)
- Griset v. Fair Political Practices Com., 25 Cal.4th 688 (2001) (appellate jurisdiction exists only where statute makes an order appealable)
- Jennings v. Marralle, 8 Cal.4th 121 (1994) (an appealable order or judgment is a jurisdictional prerequisite to an appeal)
- People v. Benavides, 99 Cal.App.4th 100 (2002) (order affects People’s substantial rights only if it alters judgment, enforcement, or defendant’s relationship to the judgment)
- People v. Superior Court (Kaulick), 215 Cal.App.4th 1279 (2013) (a completed resentencing order under §1170.126 that modifies the original sentence is appealable under §1238(a)(5))