People v. Grandberry

Filed 1/22/26 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B338353 (Super. Ct. No. KA051126) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County)

v.

RICHARD GRANDBERRY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Richard Grandberry, a “Three Striker,” appeals following a Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing.1 He contends (1) the trial court erred when it “failed” to apply section 1385, subdivision (c), as amended by Senate Bill No. 81, in deciding whether to dismiss his “Three Strikes priors,” and (2) section 1385, subdivision (c) should be interpreted in a manner that encompasses these convictions under the rule of lenity because the statute is subject to genuine ambiguity. The People contend there was no error because section 1385, subdivision (c) does not apply to the “Three Strikes” law,

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

and the rule of lenity is not applicable here. We agree with the People and affirm. Procedural Background In April 2001, appellant was convicted by jury of first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, count 1) and attempted first degree burglary (§§ 664, 459, 460, count 2). As to both counts, the jury found true that a person was present during the commission of the offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (c).) In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true the allegations that appellant had suffered three prior felony convictions within the meaning of the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)), three prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and a prior prison term enhancement (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court sentenced appellant to a term of 66 years to life in state prison. This sentence was, after a non-published opinion, People v. Grandberry (Oct. 16, 2002, B152030), reduced to a term of 41 years to life. In March 2024, appellant filed a motion for a “full resentencing” pursuant to section 1172.75 after he was referred to the trial court for resentencing by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Appellant requested that the trial court strike the one-year prior prison term enhancement, exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1385 to dismiss the three, five-year prior serious felony enhancements, and exercise its discretion pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497 to dismiss two prior strike convictions. The People filed an opposition. At the hearing, counsel for appellant requested the trial court strike two of his prior strike convictions and one of his five-