People v. Grady CA4/1

Filed 7/31/25 P. v. Grady CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083700

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD216913)

MARQUISE GRADY,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge. Affirmed. Nancy J. King, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Melissa A. Mandel, Seth M. Friedman and Joseph C. Anagnos, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, defendant Marquise Grady and three codefendants were charged with multiple offenses arising out of a gang-related shooting in a local liquor store parking lot. Grady was convicted of one count of first degree murder, three counts of premeditated attempted murder, one count of conspiracy to commit murder, and one count of shooting at an occupied vehicle. In 2023, Grady filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal

Code section 1172.6,1 claiming he could no longer be convicted of murder

or attempted murder because of recent changes to sections 188 and 189.2 The trial court summarily denied the petition, finding that Grady failed to establish a prima facie case for relief. We agree with the trial court that Grady’s conviction for conspiracy to commit murder shows that Grady acted with express malice and an intent to kill. So although the jury was instructed on the now-invalid natural and probable consequences doctrine, the conspiracy conviction makes clear the jurors did not rely on this theory in finding Grady guilty of murder and attempted murder. Accordingly, we affirm the order denying relief.