People v. Edward CA2/4

DISCUSSION

Respondent argues, and we agree, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to consider appellant’s petition for resentencing under Proposition 47 during the pendency of his appeal from the denial of his petition under Proposition 36. A postjudgment order denying a petition for resentencing under Proposition 36 is an appealable order (Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 601), and once an appeal is timely filed from such an order, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction over its subject matter. (See People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1044 [“‘an appeal from an order in a criminal case removes the subject matter of that order from the jurisdiction of the trial court’”].) The goal is to protect the jurisdiction of the appellate court by preserving the status quo “so that an appeal is not rendered futile by alteration. [Citations.]” (People v. Scarbrough (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 916, 923.) Since the trial court is divested of jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal, any action it takes is null and void. (Ibid.) Respondent relies on People v. Yearwood (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 161 and People v. Scarbrough, supra, 240 Cal.App.4th 916, which held the…