DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot
27,361 rulings indexed. Last ingest about 2 hours ago .
Data refreshes about every 15 minutes during California business hours.
DecisionDepot is for informational use only. Not legal advice. Always verify against the source ruling before relying on any analysis.
© 2026 DecisionDepot dev · 2026-07-08 01:03 UTC Admin
People v. Grimes CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Grimes CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 8/30/23 P. v. Grimes CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E081420, E081422
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. FSB044772, FSB026485) BENNETT GOLDING GRIMES, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
BENNETT GOLDING BROWN, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Cheryl C. Kersey,
Judge. Dismissed.
Bennett G. Grimes, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
1
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Bennett Golding Grimes appeals the denial of his petition for a writ of coram
nobis. After his counsel filed a no-issue brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14
Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo), Grimes filed his own supplemental brief. We dismiss.
More from California Court of Appeal Source: opinion data from the Free Law Project / CourtListener (public-domain court records). DecisionDepot is for informational use only and is not legal advice — verify against the official reporter before relying on any text or AI-generated summary.
BACKGROUND
In May 2000, Grimes pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or
cohabitant. (Pen. Code § 273.5, subd. (a))1 Per the plea agreement, the court placed him
on probation for three years.
In September 2004, Grimes again pled guilty to inflicting corporal injury on a
spouse or cohabitant and admitted he was convicted of the same crime less than seven
years earlier, and therefore qualified for harsher sentencing under former section 273.5,
subdivision (e), now subdivision (f). The court sentenced Grimes to two years in state
On April 28, 2023, Grimes filed an in propria persona “Petition [f]or Recall of
Sentence Pursuant [t]o ‘Coram Nobis Relief’ ” regarding both cases. The trial court
denied the petitions in May 2023, and Grimes appealed.
ANALYSIS On Grimes’s request, we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. Counsel
filed a brief declaring they found no arguably meritorious issues to appeal, setting out a
statement of the case, and asking us to conduct an independent review of the record.
1 Unlabeled statutory citations refer to the Penal Code.
When appealing from a postconviction order, a defendant has no constitutional
right to independent review under Anders/Wende2 if appellate counsel cannot identify
any arguable issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 231.) However, “[i]f the
defendant subsequently files a supplemental brief or letter, the Court of Appeal is
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written
opinion.” (Id. at p. 232.) Here, after appellate counsel filed a brief notifying us Grimes’s
appeal presented no arguable issues, we offered Grimes an opportunity to file a personal
supplemental brief, and he did so.
Grimes’s brief cannot and does not address the fundamental error in his petition,
which is that neither this appeal nor the relief he requests is authorized. As a threshold
matter, the denial of his petition, which nominally seeks coram nobis relief, is not
appealable, as his petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief. (People v. Gallardo
(2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 971, 982 [“Denial of a defendant’s request for coram nobis relief
is appealable . . . unless the petition failed to state a prima facie case for relief . . . or the
petition merely duplicated issues which had or could have been resolved in other
proceedings.”]; see People v. Kim (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1078, 1091-1096 (Kim) [providing
background on the availability of coram nobis relief generally].) “ ‘A writ of coram
nobis permits the court which rendered judgment “to reconsider it and give relief from
errors of fact.” ’ ” (People v. McElwee (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1348, 1352.)
Accordingly, “ ‘[t]he remedy does not lie to enable the court to correct errors of law.’ ”
2 Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders); People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).
(Kim, at p. 1093.) Grimes’s petition alleges no errors of fact, only an alleged change in
the law. Therefore, Grimes has failed to establish a prima facie claim for coram nobis
relief, and his appeal should be dismissed.
In addition, the petition would be meritless even if Grimes had stated a prima facie
case for coram nobis relief, or if we were to interpret his petition as a request for some
other kind of relief. Grimes’s petition alleges recall and resentencing is appropriate due
to a change in the law. But Grimes’s cases are final, have been final for years, and in fact
Grimes has already served his sentence in both. Absent some statutory provision
expressly entitling him to retroactive relief—which he does not identify—later
ameliorative changes in the law do not affect him. (§ 3 [“No part of [the Penal Code] is
retroactive, unless expressly so declared.”].) Moreover, the petition’s only claimed
change in the law is our United States Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v. United
States (2015) 576 U.S. 591, which concerned only federal criminal law and does not
apply to Grimes’s cases under California state law.
Nor does Grimes’s supplemental brief raise any issues which would suggest the
court’s decision denying his petition was in error. Grimes’s supplemental brief lists
complaints about how his cases were handled previously, including alleged problems
with his consent in entering a guilty plea and his sentencing, but does not meaningfully or
specifically challenge the court’s decision on his petition. While we recognize Grimes
has concerns about his cases, they have long been final, and any alleged error is not
DISPOSITION
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.