Filed 6/27/17 P. v. Volosin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(El Dorado)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SKY LANCE VOLOSIN,

Defendant and Appellant.
C082444

(Super. Ct. No. S13CRF0188)





Following remand from this court, the trial court ordered lifetime sex offender registration for defendant Sky Lance Volosin. On this appeal, defendant contends that order must be vacated because the order issued before jurisdiction had returned to the trial court. He also challenges the order as an abuse of discretion. The People concede the court lacked jurisdiction. We agree and will remand. Because the court lacked jurisdiction, we do not consider defendant’s second contention.
BACKGROUND
In an unpublished opinion we struck the trial court’s order imposing Penal Code section 290.006 lifetime sex offender registration and remanded to determine whether a limited registration for the period of probation was appropriate. (People v. Volosin (Mar. 25, 2016, C079102) [nonpub. opn.].) On May 23, 2016, the trial court again imposed a lifetime registration requirement. Remittitur, however, did not issue until two days later, on May 25, 2016.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court’s order must be vacated for lack of jurisdiction. The People concede error, and we agree.
A timely notice of appeal divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction. (Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196-197; People v. Saunoa (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 870, 872.) “Until remittitur issues, the lower court cannot act upon the reviewing court’s decision. . . .” (Gallenkamp v. Superior Court (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 1, 12.) Actions taken on the reviewing court’s decision before remittitur issues are null and void. (Saunoa, at p. 872.)
Here, because the trial court acted before remittitur issued, the order imposing lifetime registration is null and void. The case must be remanded for resentencing.
Defendant also contends the trial court abused its discretion in imposing lifetime registration. Having vacated the sentence, we decline to address defendant’s second contention.
 
DISPOSITION
The May 23, 2016, order is vacated and the cause is remanded.



/s/
Robie, J.



We concur:



/s/
Nicholson, Acting P. J.



/s/
Renner, J.