Case: Stubblefield v. Superior Court - 6DCA holds that superior court had jurisdiction to consider defendant’s motion for release before remittitur to superior court was issued
Decided: 2/5/2025
Docket
Case Overview:
Procedural posture: Petition for writ of mandate from the superior court’s order denying the defendant’s motion for release pending the final outcome of his appeal
Petitioner: Dana Stubblefield
Respondent: Superior Court of Santa Clara County
Sixth District Court of Appeal case no.: H052893
Appeal from: Santa Clara Superior Court
Question:
(1) Does the superior court have jurisdiction over a defendant’s motion for release after the defendant prevailed in his appeal, but before the appellate court issued a remittitur to the superior court?
Answer:
(1) Yes, the superior court has jurisdiction to entertain the defendant’s motion for release in the situation described in the facts below.
The ordinary rule is that the filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur. The notice of appeal divests the superior court of jurisdiction over matters affecting the judgment.
Under Code of Civil Procedure § 916(a), however, appellate jurisdiction does not divest the superior court of all power to act. The superior court “may proceed upon any other matter embraced in the action and not affected by the judgment or order.”
Additionally, “a trial court’s jurisdiction survives where provided by statute.” Subject to exceptions not applicable in Stubblefield’s case, Penal Code §§ 1272 and 1291 confers jurisdiction on the superior court to handle a defendant’s motion for release pending appeal.
Facts:
In an appeal to the Sixth District Court of Appeal, the defendant successfully challenged his conviction on the ground that the prosecution had violated the Racial Justice Act (RJA). The Sixth District Court of Appeal declared defendant’s conviction legally invalid, vacated his sentence and conviction, and remanded the matter to the superior court to conduct new proceedings consistent with Penal Code § 745. The decision became final in the Sixth District Court of Appeal. The Attorney General petitioned the California Supreme Court for review.
Before the Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a remittitur to the superior court, Stubblefield filed a motion in the superior court seeking release pending the final outcome of his appeal. The superior court denied Stubblefield’s motion on the ground that the superior court lacked jurisdiction because no remittitur had issued.
Outcome:
The Sixth District Court of Appeal issued a peremptory writ of mandate commanding the superior court to vacate its order denying Stubblefield’s motion for release and conduct proceedings to rule on the merits of the motion.
Justice Greenwood authored the opinion, joined by Justices Grover and Lie.
Links:
Westlaw: 2025 WL 400708
Central California Appellate Program: Summary
Earlier decision by the Sixth District Court of Appeal: People v. Stubblefield, 107 Cal. App. 5th 896 (2024), review filed (Feb. 4, 2025)
Case: People v. Chatman - 5DCA holds that a defendant’s unauthorized petition for resentencing does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant
Decided: 2/4/2025
Docket
Case Overview:
Procedural posture: Appeal from the superior court’s order denying a defendant-filed petition for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.1
Plaintiff-respondent: The People of the State of California
Defendant-appellant: Demidrick Chatman
Fifth District Court of Appeal case no.: F087868
Appeal from: Tulare Superior Court (Leedy, J.)
Advocates: Amanda D. Cary for the People; Richard Fitzer for Chatman
Questions:
(1) Whether a criminal defendant’s filing of an unauthorized petition for relief under Penal Code § 1172.1 deprives the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant otherwise afforded to the court by § 1172.1.
(2) Whether an order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is appealable.
Answers:
(1) No. A defendant’s filing of an unauthorized petition under § 1172.1 does not deprive the superior court of jurisdiction to resentence the defendant. Section 1172.1 provides the superior court with jurisdiction and discretion to recall and resentence the defendant on its motion.
(2) Yes. Though the superior court is not required to rule on a defendant’s request for relief under § 1172.1, when a trial court affirmatively denies a petition, it has effectively ruled on the petition. In doing so, the court’s ruling qualifies as an appealable order when it affects a person’s substantial rights. An order denying a defendant’s request for relief under § 1172.1 affects the defendant’s substantial rights.
Facts:
In 2017, the defendant pleaded no contest to multiple charges, including attempted second-degree robbery, assault with a firearm, and misdemeanor offenses. He also admitted to firearm enhancements and a prior serious felony strike. As a result, he was sentenced to 27 years and 8 months in prison. The court imposed restitution and other fines.
In 2023, the defendant petitioned for resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.6. The court denied the petition on the ground that the defendant failed to state a prima facie case for eligibility because the defendant did not allege, nor did the record show, that the defendant was convicted of or charged with murder, attempted murder, or manslaughter.
In 2024, the defendant filed a “request for recall of sentence and resentencing under Assembly Bill 600 and Penal Code section 1172.1” using a prepared form. The defendant argued that changes in sentencing laws made him eligible for reconsideration. The court denied the defendant’s request and stated that it lacked jurisdiction to resentence the defendant. When the defendant submitted an identical request on March 21, 2024, the court denied the request without further explanation.
Outcome:
The Fifth District Court of Appeal reversed the superior court’s order denying defendant’s § 1172.1 petition for resentencing, and remanded for further proceedings.
Justice Peña authored the opinion, joined by Justices Hill and Smith.
District Split:
5DCA: An order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is appealable.
2DCA: An order denying a defendant’s unauthorized request to recall his sentence under § 1172.1 is not appealable.
In People v. Hodge, 107 Cal. App. 5th 985, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d 623 (2024), the Second District Court of Appeal, Division 2, held that a superior court’s decision denying a defendant’s postjudgment request for resentencing was an “order” under Penal Code § 1237. In this respect, Hodge and Chatman are in agreement.
However, the Hodge Court also held that “a trial court’s order declining to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1 to recall a defendant’s sentence on its own motion after receiving the defendant’s unauthorized request for such relief does not affect the defendant’s substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b).” Hodge, 328 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 631.
Links:
Westlaw: 2025 WL 384047