People v. Wells CA1/1

Filed 6/30/25 P. v. Wells CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172937 v. (Sacramento County CHRISTOPHER KELLY WELLS, Super. Ct. No. 13F02988) Defendant and Appellant. Christopher Kelly Wells appeals from an order denying his “Petition to Recall Sentence and Resentence Pursuant to Assembly/Senate Bills 81 Also All the One, Three, and Five Year Enhancement ‘Priors.’ ” We conclude the trial court’s order was not appealable and therefore dismiss the appeal. I. BACKGROUND1 On March 11, 2014, an amended consolidated information was filed alleging that Wells and a codefendant committed first degree robbery on May 20, 2013 (count one; Pen. Code,2 § 211) and second degree robbery on June 1, 2013 (count two; § 211). As to count one, it was alleged Wells personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.53, 1 By order of the Chief Justice dated April 10, 2025, this action was transferred from the Third Appellate District to this court. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code. subdivision (b). Wells was also charged with committing assault with a firearm on June 2, 2013 (count three; § 245, subd. (a)(2)). As to count three, it was further alleged Wells personally used a firearm within the meaning of section 12022.5, subdivisions (a) and (d). The information also alleged two prior serious and violent felony convictions against Wells in Sacramento County cases Nos. FCH00908 and 09F02113 rendering him eligible for Three Strikes sentencing (§§ 667, subds. (a), (e)(2)(C) & 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(C)). As to case No. FCH00908, it was initially alleged that Wells committed assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The allegations were later amended over defense objection on April 25, 2014, to claim Wells committed assault with a deadly weapon. As to case No. 09F02113, it was alleged Wells committed a first degree burglary (§ 459) on November 2, 2009. On March 27, 2014, Wells was found guilty of first degree robbery and personal use of a firearm as charged in count one, second degree burglary as charged in count two, and assault with a firearm and personal use of a firearm as charged in count three. The “strike priors” were found true by the trial court. On April 25, 2014, Wells was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of 76 years to life plus an additional determinate term of 40 years. In a nonpublished opinion, the Third Appellate District ordered corrections to the abstract of judgment and otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Wells (Nov. 19, 2015, C076411).) On July 15, 2024, representing himself, Wells filed his “Petition to Recall Sentence and Resentence Pursuant to Assembly/Senate Bills 81 Also All the One, Three, and Five Year Enhancement ‘Priors’ ” (the petition). In 2 the petition, Wells requested a hearing to “dismiss all the prior conviction case enhancements” and for “consideration of the full sentence rules.” The trial court viewed the petition as “requesting a recall of the sentence and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.1, subdivision (a).” On September 9, 2024, it dismissed the petition under section 1172.1, subdivision (c), and on the grounds that Wells was not entitled to file a request seeking relief from the court under section 1172.1, subdivision (a). The written order stated the court had not received a recommendation for recall and resentencing from an appropriate authorized agency and the trial court declined to consider recall and resentencing on its own motion. Wells appeals the denial of his petition. II. DISCUSSION The appeal filed by Wells must be dismissed as appellate review of his petition is not available. A. Appealability The notice of appeal challenges the trial court order of September 9, 2024, which addressed Wells’s petition as a request for recall of a sentence and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1, subdivision (a). This statute permits certain government entities to move to recall a sentence and resentence a person. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) However, a defendant is not perm