People v. Griffin CA3

Filed 3/14/25 P. v. Griffin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100161

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR115423)

v.

CHARLES E. GRIFFIN II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Approximately 30 years after defendant Charles E. Griffin II was originally sentenced, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (Department) notified the trial court defendant was eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. 1 The court recalled defendant’s sentence and appointed counsel. Prior to resentencing,

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

defendant filed a motion pursuant to People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, which the trial court denied. Defendant appeals the denial of this motion. Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, asking this court to independently review the record to determine if there were any arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Defendant filed a supplemental brief raising issues generally related to the denial of his Marsden motion. We requested supplemental briefing from counsel on whether the denial of the Marsden motion, made after recall of sentence and prior to resentencing, was an appealable order under section 1237, subdivision (b); and, if so, whether the trial court prejudicially erred in denying defendant’s motion without a hearing. Having considered the supplemental briefs, we conclude the order denying defendant’s Marsden motion is not an order that is appealable separately from the following judgment (i.e., resentencing); thus, we will dismiss the appeal as premature. Based on this conclusion, we need not address trial court error. BACKGROUND We omit a summary of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction as they are not relevant to our disposition of this case. It suffices to say that in 1993 a jury found defendant guilty of several felony counts with firearm and injury enhancements. The trial court found true multiple prior conviction enhancements, including two prior prison term enhancements pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of life in prison plus 17 years, which included one consecutive year for each of the prior prison term enhancements.