People v. Griffin CA3

Filed 6/28/22 P. v. Griffin CA3 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. OPINION ON TRANSFER

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 (2017-2018 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2017, ch. 682, Senate Bill 620) and 1393 (2017-2018

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2018, ch. 1013, Senate Bill 1393). In our original unpublished decision in this matter, we affirmed the trial court’s ord er. Defendant appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted his petition for review, and, on February 17, 2022, the Supreme Court transferred the matter back to us with directions to vacate the previous decision and reconsider the matter “in light of Senate Bill No. 775 (Stats. 2021, ch. 551) [(Senate Bill 775)] and People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952 [(Lewis)].” We again affirm the trial court’s order. I. BACKGROUND “Defendant and Arthur Robertson, the victim, had quarreled over a narcotics transaction. Defendant lay in wait for the victim and as the victim drove by, fired at him twice with a shotgun, severely wounding him.” (People v. Griffin (Apr. 26, 1994, C016151) [nonpub. opn.].) 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, supra, C016151.) 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 by written order, without appointing counsel or holding a hearing, stating: “Upon review of the court file the court finds that the defendant was not prosecuted or convicted under a felony murder or murd er under a