People v. Griffin CA3

Filed 10/27/25 P. v. Griffin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101857

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 115423)

v.

CHARLES EDWARD GRIFFIN II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Charles Edward Griffin II appeals a judgment entered following his resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 He contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to dismiss two sentence enhancements, refused to strike the finding that he acted with deliberation and premeditation in committing attempted murder, and declined to stay under section 654 the indeterminate term for his attempted murder conviction. We will affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND After Griffin and the victim quarreled over a narcotics transaction, Griffin lay in wait for the victim. As the victim drove by, Griffin fired at him twice with a shotgun, causing severe wounds. (People v. Griffin (Apr. 26, 1994, C016151) [nonpub. opn.].) In 1993, a jury found Griffin guilty of first degree attempted murder (§§ 664, 187), shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (former § 12021). The jury further found that the attempted murder was deliberate and premeditated. The jury also found true the allegations that Griffin inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7) and that he used a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court found true allegations that Griffin committed the offenses while out on bail (§ 12022.1), had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and served two prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced Griffin to life with the possibility of parole plus 17 years. This court affirmed the judgment. Thereafter, the Legislature amended section 667.5, subdivision (b) “by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses.” (People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380.) It also created a recall and resentencing procedure to provide affected defendants a remedy for now-invalid enhancements. (Ibid.) According to that procedure, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (the Department) notifies the sentencing court that a defendant is serving a sentence that includes a qualifying section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) The sentencing court then reviews the current judgment and verifies eligibility. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) If eligible, the defendant is resentenced. (Ibid.) Resentencing under the statute “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) Resentencing under this section “shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.” (Ibid.)