People v. Hennes CA2/7

DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent Hennes on appeal from the denial of his motion to correct his sentence. After reviewing the record, appointed counsel did not identify any arguable issues and so informed this court. Appointed counsel advised Hennes that she was filing a brief stating she “did not find any arguable issues to raise on appellant’s behalf” and that Hennes had a right

The minute order misstated the aggregate sentence as 48 years four months to life.

3 to file a supplemental brief. Appointed counsel sent Hennes a copy of the brief and the transcripts of the record on appeal. On February 7, 2024 we received a two-page supplemental brief from Hennes, with 12 pages of exhibits. Hennes argued his motion “outlined clearly, persuasively and unambiguously my legal entitlement to the relief sought in this matter” and that “because of such miscalculation, my judgment was/is effectively rendered ‘non-final’ in turn legally entitling me to the full range of relief.” The trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Hennes’s motion. The decision in People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56 (Boyd) is instructive. There, the defendant appealed from the trial…