California Court of Appeal Dec 2, 2022 No. E079367Unpublished
Filed 12/2/22 P. v. Craig CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E079367
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB044115)
CHRISTOPHER CRAIG, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Steve Malone,
Judge. Affirmed.
Steven S. Lubliner, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
No appearance for Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Christopher Craig appeals the San Bernardino County
Superior Court’s denial of his petition for resentencing made pursuant to section 1385 of
the Penal Code.1 We affirm.
BACKGROUND
In 2004, the People filed an information against defendant and two codefendants.
The charges involving defendant consisted of ten counts of robbery with enhancements
for firearm use and arming, and five of the counts included an enhancement for
defendant’s personal use of a firearm (§§ 211, subd. (a), 12022, subd. (a)(1), 12022.53,
subd. (b)), and a prior strike for false imprisonment (§ 236).
Defendant admitted the strike, and pled guilty to all ten counts of robbery, three of
the ten arming enhancements, and the five personal use enhancements. In September
2005, the court sentenced defendant to a total of 29 years in state prison. As to the
principal count of robbery, it imposed the mid-term of three years, doubled due to the
prior strike, plus the upper term of ten years for the firearm enhancement. As to five
counts of robbery, the court imposed one-year consecutive terms, doubled, and imposed
one-year arming enhancements as to three of those counts. As the to four remaining
robbery counts, the court sentenced defendant to one-third the midterm (total of two
years) for one of the violations and six years for each of the remaining three counts, all to
run concurrently. It also imposed but stayed a three year and four months term on one of
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
the firearm enhancements, and a total of 12 years on three other enhancements that were
to run concurrently. Defendant did not appeal the judgment.
In 2021, the Legislature amended section 1385 to add subdivision (c). (Sen. Bill
No. 81 (Stats 2021, ch. 721, § 1, 2021-2022 Reg. Sess.).) The subdivision, which applies
to all sentencings occurring after the provision’s effective date of January 1, 2022,
requires the trial court to dismiss an enhancement if it makes a discretionary finding that
dismissal would further the interests of justice unless the dismissal would violate any
initiative statute or would endanger public safety. (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), (2), (7).)
In April 2022, defendant filed a petition pursuant to subdivision (c) of section
1385 requesting the court to exercise its discretion to dismiss all the enhancements
included in his sentence and arguing that, in all events, the court was obliged to dismiss
any enhancement that could result in a sentence of over 20 years. He also urged the trial
court to interpret section 1385 to permit dismissal of the portion of his sentence imposed
pursuant to the three-strikes law.
The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointment of counsel or
response from the People and without mention of subdivision (c)(7). It found a reduction
in sentence would not serve the interests of justice because defendant had already
received the benefit of a reduced sentence, he had been convicted of 10 violent felonies,
and his personal use of firearms in the commission of the offenses endangered public
safety. Defendant appealed.
3
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s appointed appellate counsel has filed an opening brief that sets forth
statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication. He
requests us to independently review the record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende
(1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Counsel suggests four potentially arguable issues: (i) whether subdivision (c) of
section 1385 should be applied retroactively to defendant; (ii) whether the trial court
erred in denying defendant’s petition without any information concerning his current risk
for danger to public safety; (iii) whether defendant is entitled to a new hearing because
the trial court’s minute order denying the petition included an incorrect statement that
defendant avoided a substantially longer prison term because, pursuant to the plea
agreement, the People “dismissed” multiple counts of robbery and personal use of a
firearm enhancements; (iv) whether defendant is entitled to a new hearing so his request
to dismiss his prior strike under section 1385, subdivision (a) can be “squarely
considered.”
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which
he has not done. Although we are not required to independently review the record for
potential errors in a postjudgment appeal, we exercised our discretion to do so in keeping
with our opinion in People v. Griffin (Nov. 14, 2022, E079269) ___ Cal.App.5th ___.
We found no arguable issues.
4
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER J.
FIELDS J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's denial of the defendant's petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c), finding no arguable issues after an independent review of the record.
Issues
Whether Penal Code section 1385, subdivision (c) applies retroactively to the defendant.
Whether the trial court erred in denying the petition without current information regarding the defendant's risk to public safety.
Whether the defendant is entitled to a new hearing due to factual inaccuracies in the trial court's minute order.
Whether the defendant is entitled to a hearing to consider dismissal of his prior strike under section 1385, subdivision (a).
Disposition. Affirmed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The trial court summarily denied the petition without appointment of counsel or response from the People and without mention of subdivision (c)(7).”
“We exercised our discretion to do so in keeping with our opinion in People v. Griffin (Nov. 14, 2022, E079269) ___ Cal.App.5th ___. We found no arguable issues.”