legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Fitz CA2/3
Appellant Ricardo Padilla Fitz appeals from an order denying his postjudgment motion which had asked the trial court to “grant a remand” so “the court can exercise its newly-granted discretion” to strike or dismiss a firearm enhancement under Penal Code section 12022.53, subdivision (h), as amended by Senate Bill No. 620 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.). Fitz’s appellate counsel filed a brief under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano) and People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). Fitz filed a supplemental brief. For the reasons explained below, we conclude that Fitz has appealed a nonappealable order and thus dismiss this appeal.

Search thread for
Download thread as



Quick Reply

Your Name:
Your Comment:

smiling face wink grin cool nod sticking out tongue raised eyebrow confused shocked shaking head disapproval rolling eyes sad mad

Click an emoji to insert it into your message. You may use BB Codes in your message.
Spam Prevention:

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale