People v. Griffin CA3

Filed 11/6/20 P. v. Griffin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C090893

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

v.

CHARLES EDWARD GRIFFIN II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Charles Edward Griffin II appeals the trial court’s denial of his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1170.95, arguing the trial court failed to follow the required procedures before denying the petition.1 He further argues that his conviction for attempted murder should have been eligible for relief under section 1170.95. Defendant also seeks remand for the trial court to consider Senate Bills Nos. 620 and 1393. We affirm.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 1993, defendant was found guilty of attempted murder in the first degree (§§ 664, 187), shooting at an occupied vehicle (§ 246), and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021). The attempted murder charge included several enhancements: personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.5), infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7), felony committed while on bail (§ 12022.1), prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (a)). Defendant appealed his conviction, which we affirmed. (People v. Griffin (Apr. 26, 1994, C016151) [nonpub. opn.].) In September 2019, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1170.95. In his petition, defendant declared the prosecution proceeded “under a theory of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” he “was convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder pursuant to the felony murder rule or the natural and probable consequences doctrine,” and he “could not now be convicted of 1st or 2nd degree murder.” The trial court denied the petition stating, “Upon review of the court file the court finds that the defendant was not prosecuted or convicted under a felony murder or murder under a natural and probable consequence theory. The court further finds that defendant’s conviction was for [§§] 664/187, attempted murder. For these reasons the court finds that no prima facie showing exists to support defendant’s Petition for Re- Sentencing and the Petition is denied without prejudice.” II. DISCUSSION A. No Violation of Section 1170.95 Defendant contends the trial court erred by summarily denying his petition without following procedures that he claims section 1170.95 mandates. We disagree. The parties’ dispute turns on the meaning of section 1170.95, subdivision (c), which provides: “The court shall review the petition and determine if the petitioner has made a prima facie showing that the petitioner falls within the provisions of this section.