Filed 3/28/18 P. v. Woolford CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Butte)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DARYL RICKY WOOLFORD,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082101

(Super. Ct. Nos. CM039782, CM040159)



Defendant Daryl Ricky Woolford appeals from the trial court’s April 21, 2016 order terminating his mandatory supervision and imposing a prison sentence that had previously been stayed.
His claims on appeal concern the events surrounding the ultimate denial of his petitions for resentencing on his two crimes of conviction, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170.18. He first contends the trial court’s order allowing the withdrawal of his section 1170.18 petition to reduce and resentence on his burglary conviction--after the petition had been granted--was invalid. He next argues that subsequent orders denying reduction were in error, and that trial counsel was ineffective.
As we will explain, defendant’s challenges to the denial of his section 1170.18 petitions are not properly before this court and he raises no claim of error related to the April 21, 2016 judgment. Accordingly, we shall dismiss his appeal.
BACKGROUND
The facts of defendant’s underlying crimes are not relevant to our determination that his appeal must be dismissed. It suffices to say that on February 27, 2014, he pleaded no contest to second degree burglary (§ 459) and admitted an on-bail enhancement in case No. CM040159 (the burglary case), and pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)) in case No. CM039782 (the receiving case), along with pleas to several misdemeanors in cases not related to this appeal. He was sentenced to a four-year eight-month term of mandatory supervision.
Defendant filed a section 1170.18 petition on December 22, 2014, seeking to reduce the burglary and receiving cases to misdemeanors. On March 9, 2015, the trial court granted the petition to reduce the burglary case to a misdemeanor but denied the petition as to the receiving case. The court set the resentencing date for April 27, 2015.
Defendant was not present but was represented by counsel at the April 27 resentencing date for the newly reduced burglary case. Counsel informed the trial court that defendant wanted to withdraw his section 1170.18 petition. The court purported to “withdraw” “the granting of the petition” “nunc pro tunc.” Defendant later confirmed that he had authorized the withdrawal of his petition.
On June 3, 2015, defendant filed a second section 1170.18 petition seeking resentencing on the receiving case. On July 29, he filed a second section 1170.18 petition seeking resentencing on the burglary case.
On August 14, 2015, the trial court denied both petitions, noting that while the previous petition was initially granted it was later withdrawn by defendant.
At a November 20, 2015 disposition hearing on a supervised release violation, defendant again raised the issue of reduction. The trial court told defendant multiple times that the petitions had previously been denied in August 2015 and defendant had been advised of his appellate rights at that time. The court dropped the section 1170.18 issues from calendar and on November 25, 2015, reinstated mandatory supervision with an additional 180 days in jail.
Following multiple additional supervision violations alleged in 2016, on April 21, 2016, the trial court terminated mandatory supervision and ordered defendant to serve the previously imposed four-year eight-month term. At the hearing, defendant’s trial counsel stated: “For the record, my client wants me to file a petition pursuant to 1170.18. We confirm that that petition has been filed and has been denied.”
Defendant filed a notice of appeal from the violation hearing and disposition held on April 21, 2016, purporting to challenge the denial of his section 1170.18 petition.
DISCUSSION
Defendant claims the trial court should have resentenced his burglary conviction as a misdemeanor based on the March 9, 2015 order initially granting his petition to reduce the burglary case before the petition (or order, or both) was withdrawn. He argues the purported nunc pro tunc order withdrawing the initial grant was invalid, and any subsequent denials of his petitions were erroneous. He adds that counsel was ineffective in attempting to nullify a favorable ruling.
As the Attorney General points out and we have recited ante, defendant’s section 1170.18 petitions were denied August 14, 2015. Even by the most generous interpretation of the record, the petitions were confirmed to have been denied at the November 20, 2015 disposition hearing. Defendant did not timely appeal from those rulings.
An order denying a section 1170.18 petition is an appealable order. (See Teal v. Superior Court (2014) 60 Cal.4th 595, 597 [denial of analogous section 1170.126 resentencing petition is an appealable order].) A party has 60 days from the entry of an appealable order to appeal it. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.104.) The trial court denied defendant’s second set of written petitions on August 14, 2015. Defendant again sought section 1170.18 relief and again was denied relief at the November 20, 2015 hearing. Far more than 60 days had passed before the notice of appeal in this case was filed--in May 2016--after the trial court terminated defendant’s mandatory supervision and lifted the stay on his prison sentence. Accordingly, as to defendant’s claims of error regarding section 1170.18, his appeal is untimely and we shall not reach his claims.
Nor did defendant raise any issue regarding the order from which he appealed, entered on April 21, 2016. Consequently, we deem his appeal abandoned and shall dismiss the appeal. (In re Sade C. (1996) 13 Cal.4th 952, 994.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.




/s/
Duarte, J.



We concur:



/s/
Raye, P. J.




/s/
Renner, J.