People v. Merritt CA1/5

Filed 9/17/25 P. v. Merritt CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A172487 v. MARCEL DEMETRIUS (Napa County MERRITT, Super. Ct. No. 24CR001882) Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant and appellant Marcel Demetrius Merritt challenges a sentence imposed after he pled no contest to a charge of attempted human trafficking. (Pen. Code, §§ 664/236.1, subd. (a).)1 His attorney filed a brief seeking our independent review of the appellate record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), to determine whether there is any arguable issue on appeal. We find no arguable issue and affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY In September 2024, a criminal complaint charged Merritt with felony pandering by procuring (§ 266i, subd. (a)(1)), felony pimping (§ 266h), and misdemeanor disobedience of a trial court order (§ 166, subd. (a)(4)). The complaint alleged that Merritt had a prior strike (§ 667, subds. (b)–(i)) and

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

was ineligible for probation due to a prior sex offense (§ 1203.065, subd. (a)). It also alleged three aggravating factors for sentencing purposes. In December 2024, the prosecutor added a charge of attempted human trafficking (§§ 664/236.1, subd. (a)). Merritt entered a negotiated plea of no contest to that count and admitted a 1997 strike conviction for armed robbery (§ 211) in exchange for receiving the low term for the count. The plea agreement recognized that the low term would be 30 months or, if doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, five years. (See § 667, subd. (e)(1).) It therefore contemplated that Merritt would file a motion to disregard the prior strike for sentencing purposes pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The remaining charges were dismissed. Merritt filed a Romero motion in January 2025. He argued that his prior strike, which occurred in 1997, should be stricken in the interest of justice due to its age. He recognized that the trial court was not obligated to apply the mitigating factors enumerated in section 1385, subd. (c)(2)(A)–(I), when deciding whether to disregard the strike. (People v. Dowdy (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 1, 9.) But he asked the court to consider two of those factors anyway. First, Merritt’s offense in this case was not a violent felony. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(F).) Second, the strike prior was more than five years old (id., subd. (c)(2)(H)), and he had committed only minor offenses since then. He also claimed that his childhood was marked by trauma and violence. (Id., subd. (c)(2)(E).) Merritt further argued that he had acknowledged wrongdoing when he pled before the preliminary hearing; made efforts toward rehabilitation; was employed “seasonally” for “many years” since 2000; and cared for his father, who suffered from dementia, and his mother, who was diagnosed with