I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In October 2003, defendant and a cohort robbed at least eight victims at four

separate locations at gunpoint. After the last incident, police pursued the car in which

defendant and others were riding. After finding the vehicle abandoned, officers found

items taken from some of the robberies. In November 2003, defendant and a companion

robbed another victim at gunpoint at yet another location. (People v. Steward (Jun. 16,

2006, E037176) (Steward).)

1 Defendant originally failed to timely file a supplemental brief. We issued an opinion dismissing the appeal. Prior to that opinion becoming final, defendant submitted a motion requesting to file a late supplemental brief. We granted the request, vacated our opinion, and filed defendant’s supplemental brief.

2 On November 3, 2004, a jury found defendant guilty of 10 counts of second

degree robbery (Pen. Code,2 § 211, counts 1-3 & 5-11) and one count of attempted

robbery (§§ 664, 211, count 4). The jury additionally found true allegations that

defendant used a firearm during six of the robberies and the attempted robbery

(§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and that a principal was armed with a firearm during one of the

robberies (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced defendant to prison for 43 years.

(Steward, supra, E037176.)

Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment. (Steward, supra,

E037176.)

On June 23, 2023, defendant filed a motion for resentencing pursuant to Assembly

Bill No. 124, Senate Bill No. 483, Assembly Bill No. 256, and Senate Bill No. 81. The

People filed opposition to defendant’s petition largely contending that since defendant’s

judgment had been final since 2006, he was ineligible for resentencing. At a hearing on

March 29, 2024, at which counsel represented defendant, the court denied defendant’s

motion.

II. DISCUSSION

Defendant contends his appellate counsel rendered prejudicial ineffective

assistance of counsel by filing a Delgadillo brief. Defendant maintains appellate counsel

should have argued that under Assembly Bill Nos. 600 and 620, the matter must be

reversed and remanded so that the court can determine whether one or both personal use

2 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 of a firearm enhancements should be stricken. Defendant also appears to argue that the

trial court permitted the introduction of inadmissible evidence at trial, that the evidence

admitted at trial was insufficient to support his convictions in counts 1 and 2, that the trial

court improperly instructed the jury, and that the court erred in imposing its sentence. We

dismiss the appeal.

“Assembly Bill No. 600 ‘amended section 1172.1 to allow a trial court, on its own

motion, to recall a sentence and resentence a defendant when “applicable sentencing laws

at the time of the original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority

or case law.”’ [Citation.]” (People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 353, fn. 10.)

Senate Bill No. 620 amended section 12022.53, subdivision (h) to provide that

“[t]he court may, in the interest of justice pursuant to Section 1385 and at the time of

sentencing, strike or dismiss an enhancement otherwise required to be imposed by this

section.” (People v. McDavid (2024) 15 Cal.5th 1015, 1024.)

Here, neither the court below nor this court have jurisdiction over the matter. “An

order denying a motion the court lacks jurisdiction to grant does not affect a defendant’s

substantial rights. [Citation.] Any appeal from such an order must be dismissed.

[Citation.]” (People v. Alexander (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 341, 344 [Appeal from court

order denying defendant’s postconviction section 1385 motion to strike enhancements

must be dismissed]; People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332 [“[S]ection 1172.75

does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or

petition.”]; People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 999 [“[T]he trial court’s

4 decision denying [defendant’s] motion for relief under . . . [section 745] is not appealable

because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to provide the relief that [defendant]

requested.”].)

III. DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER Acting P. J.

We concur:

FIELDS

J.

MENETREZ

J.

5