People v. Navarro CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from an order
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCS317638
- Trial judge
- Enrique E. Camarena
- Outcome
- dismissed — Appeal dismissed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Buchanan (author), Michele M. Castillo, Julia C. Kelety
Analysis
The trial court denied Navarro's motion to reconsider its prior order declining to grant mental health diversion, ruling it lacked jurisdiction to do so after judgment had been entered. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the order denying reconsideration was not an appealable postjudgment order because it did not affect the defendant's substantial rights.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to reconsider the order declining mental health diversion“We agree with the trial court that it had no authority to reconsider its prior ruling after reaffirming the conviction and sentence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court The appellate court correctly applied the law of the case and the finality doctrine. Under People v. DeLouize, a trial court generally lacks the power to alter a final judgment except through specific statutory mechanisms or collateral attack. Since the trial court had already reaffirmed the conviction and sentence, the subsequent order denying reconsideration was a nullity that did not affect substantial rights, rendering it non-appealable under People v. Turrin. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLouize (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1223 — Courts may correct judicial error in interim orders up until pronouncement of judgment but may not correct judicial error in final order except pursuant to statutory procedures or on limited grounds available for collateral attack.
- relied: People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200 — An order that does not affect substantial rights is not an appealable postjudgment order.
- relied: People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32 — An appeal from a non-appealable order must be dismissed.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Appellate counsel must review the record for error when unable to identify arguable issues for reversal.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly identifies that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider a final judgment, rendering the subsequent order non-appealable. It relies on established California authority regarding the finality of judgments and the scope of appellate review for postjudgment orders.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionAfter remand, the San Diego Superior Court found Navarro eligible and suitable for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 but declined to grant it, left his conviction and sentence in place, and later denied his motion to reconsider (based on Sarmiento v. Superior Court) as untimely, beyond its authority because judgment was final, and alternatively unmeritorious. On appeal from the order denying reconsideration, with a Wende brief filed, the Court of Appeal held the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider, so the order did not affect substantial rights under section 1237, subdivision (b) and was not appealable, and dismissed the appeal.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Denial of motion to reconsider the post-remand denial of mental health diversion on the ground the court lacked authority to revisit a final judgment“We agree with the trial court that it had no authority to reconsider its prior ruling after reaffirming the conviction and sentence.” | unclear | correct | agree with court Once the trial court on remand declined diversion and reaffirmed the conviction and sentence, that was an appealable judgment; Navarro did not appeal it. Under DeLouize a court may not correct claimed judicial error in a final order outside statutory procedures or collateral attack, and under Turrin an order denying a motion the court had no jurisdiction to grant does not affect substantial rights and is not appealable under section 1237(b). The opinion's conclusion follows from those authorities, though it does not articulate a standard of review. |
Alternative ruling that the change in law announced in Sarmiento v. Superior Court did not merit reconsideration on the merits“Additionally, the court held that if it was “wrong” on those grounds, it did not find a change in the law merited reconsideration.” | unclear | not reached | unsure Because the appellate court dismissed for lack of an appealable order, it never reached whether Sarmiento would have required a different exercise of discretion on diversion. Nothing in the opinion permits evaluation of this alternative ruling. |
Denial of request for certificate of probable cause“The trial court denied the request for certificate of probable cause.” | unclear | not reached | unsure The appellate court did not rely on section 1237.5 or the certificate denial; it dismissed on the independent ground that the order denying reconsideration was not appealable. The certificate ruling is therefore immaterial to the result and cannot be assessed from this opinion. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. DeLouize (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1223 — Courts may correct judicial error in interim orders before judgment but may not correct judicial error in a final order except through statutory procedures or on limited grounds available for collateral attack.
- relied: People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200 — Where the trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant a postjudgment motion, the order denying it does not affect the defendant's substantial rights and is not an appealable postjudgment order under section 1237, subdivision (b).
- relied: People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32 — An appeal from a nonappealable order must be dismissed.
- relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Procedure for appointed appellate counsel who finds no arguable issues to request independent review of the record.
- missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent-review procedures do not apply to appeals from postconviction orders; the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief and may dismiss or exercise discretion to review if none is filed.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The dismissal rests on settled authority (DeLouize, Turrin, Mendez) that a trial court cannot reconsider a final judgment and that an order denying such a motion is not appealable, and the opinion correctly identifies that Navarro's remedy was a timely appeal from the post-remand ruling. The opinion treats counsel's Wende brief without addressing Delgadillo, which governs no-issue briefs in postjudgment appeals and requires notice to the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief, and it does not state whether that notice was given.
Opinion
Filed 4/18/25 P. v. Navarro CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D083974
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCS317638)
JOSE DAVID NAVARRO,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Enrique E. Camarena, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION In March 2022, the trial court denied Jose David Navarro’s motion for mental health diversion under Penal Code section 1001.36 in a pending criminal prosecution.1 The court based its decision on Navarro’s failure to 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. establish that his mental health diagnosis was a “ ‘significant factor’ ” in the commission of his charged offenses. (People v. Navarro (Aug. 23, 2023, D080567) [nonpub. opn.].) Navarro then entered a stipulated plea agreement and pleaded guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and vandalism (§ 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)) and admitted having a strike prior (§§ 667(b)–(i), 1170.12, 668). The court sentenced Navarro to five years four months in state prison. Navarro appealed the court’s denial of mental health diversion. While his appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 1223 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1001.36, and we reversed the judgment and remanded for a new hearing pursuant to the amended section 1001.36. (People v. Navarro, supra, D080567.) On December 21, 2023, the court held a new hearing pursuant to the amended section 1001.36. It found that Navarro was suitable and eligible for mental health diversion but declined to exercise its discretion to grant diversion. Accordingly, the court concluded that Navarro’s conviction and sentence would be unchanged. Navarro did not appeal this order. In March 2024, Navarro filed a motion to reconsider based on this court’s January 9, 2024 decision in Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882. The court denied the motion as untimely and because it lacked “statutory authority” to reconsider the order since the case was “final” and “judgment has already been entered.” Additionally, the court held that if it was “wrong” on those grounds, it did not find a change in the law merited reconsideration. Navarro filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying reconsideration and requested a certificate of probable cause. The trial court denied the request for certificate of probable cause.
2 Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 indicating counsel has not been able to identify any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to review the record for error as mandated by Wende. We agree with the trial court that it had no authority to reconsider its prior ruling after reaffirming the conviction and sentence. (See People v. DeLouize (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1223, 1231 [courts may correct judicial error in interim orders up until pronouncement of judgment but may not correct judicial error in final order except pursuant to statutory procedures or on limited grounds available for collateral attack].) Because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to reconsider its prior ruling, the order denying reconsideration did not affect Navarro’s “substantial rights” (§ 1237, subd. (b)) and is “not an appealable postjudgment order.” (People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1208.) Navarro’s remedy was to appeal from the original ruling on remand, not the subsequent order denying reconsideration. Since the order denying Navarro’s motion to reconsider is not appealable, we must dismiss the appeal. (People v. Mendez (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 32, 33–34.)
3 DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.
BUCHANAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
KELETY, J.
CASTILLO, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Mendez No. H037967 · 2012-09-05
- People v. Turrin C059722 · 2009-08-20
- People v. DeLouize S108119 · 2004-05-24
- People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12