What jurisdictional rule at issue in this case?

As can be seen from the foregoing, the jurisdictional rule at issue pertains to the court's fundamental jurisdiction over the res of the action. A court lacks jurisdiction in a fundamental sense when it has no authority at all over the subject matter or the parties, or when it lacks any power to hear or determine the case. (People v. Ford (2015) 61 Cal.4th 282, 286, 187 Cal.Rptr.3d 919, 349 P.3d 98.) And now the flaw in defendant's argument is made plain. The court here had fundamental jurisdiction to issue sentencing

[3 Cal.App.5th 314]

orders pursuant to section 1170.18, which specifically authorizes a petition to recall a felony sentence and issue a new sentence. In other words, the court regained jurisdiction over the res of the action through the Proposition 47 petition.³ (People v. Vasquez (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 513, 518519, 202 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 [ Under the general common law rule, a trial court is deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant once execution of the sentence has commenced. [Citations.] Where the trial court relinquishes custody of a defendant, it also loses jurisdiction over that defendant. [Citation.] Section 1170.18provides a narrow exception to the general common law rule ], Italics added.)