People v. Kishor CA3

DISCUSSION

I Defendant contends the trial court erred in dismissing his motion for relief under the Racial Justice Act. The People counter that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion because defendant’s judgment became final in June 2001. We agree with the People. Regarding the retroactivity of the Racial Justice Act, and as relevant to this case, section 745, subdivision (j)(3) states that after January 1, 2024, the section applies to all cases in which the defendant is serving a prison sentence and files a petition for writ of habeas corpus. Here, defendant did not file a habeas corpus petition. Defendant sought to have his final convictions and sentence vacated and declared legally invalid. The “general rule is that ‘once a judgment is rendered and execution of

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 the sentence has begun, the trial court does not have jurisdiction to vacate or modify the sentence.’ [Citations.]” (People v. King (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 629, 634 (King).) In other words, “[w]here the trial court relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses jurisdiction over that defendant.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335,…