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 1 hour 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. Marion CA4/2 (2023) · DecisionDepot
/ California Court of Appeal People v. Marion CA4/2 Unpublished Filed 9/13/23 P. v. Marion CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E080760
v. (Super.Ct.No. FVA801272)
CARL BENTLY MARION II, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Ingrid Adamson
Uhler, Judge. Affirmed.
Carl Bently Marion II, in pro. per.; David R. Greifinger, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Carl Bently Marion II appeals from the trial court’s order
denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 former section 1170.95
(now renumbered to section 1172.6). For the reasons set forth post, we affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE On August 8, 2018, an information charged defendant with murder under section
187, subdivision (a). The information also alleged that defendant personally and
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.
intentionally discharged a firearm, a handgun, which caused great bodily injury and death
to the victim under section 12022.53, subdivisions (b), (c), and (d).
On October 9, 2008, a jury found defendant guilty of second degree murder and
found the firearm allegation true.
On November 7, 2008, the trial court sentenced defendant to 40 years to life, as
follows: Fifteen years to life for the murder and a consecutive term of 25 years to life for
On February 2, 2023, defendant filed a section 1172.6 petition for resentencing.
On February 24, 2023, the trial court denied the petition at the prima facie stage.
On February 24, 2023, defendant filed his notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION Counsel has filed a brief under the authorities of People v. Wende (1979) 25
Cal.3d 436, Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 739, and People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). In the brief, pursuant to Anders, appellate counsel has
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
identified the following issue to assist the court in its search of the record for error: “Did
the trial court err in denying sentencing relief under section 1172.6 at the prima facie
On June 8, 2023, we sent notice to defendant regarding the filing of a Delgadillo
brief, as follows: “Counsel for appellant has filed a brief stating no arguable issues can
be found. Because this is an appeal from the denial of a post-conviction proceeding, this
court is not required to conduct an independent review of the record but may do so in its
discretion. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Ca1.5th 216 []; People v. Serrano (2012)
211 Ca1.App.4th 496.) The appellant is personally granted 30 days to file any
supplemental brief deemed necessary. If appellant files a supplemental brief, this court
will evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief in its opinion. (Delgadillo,
supra, 14 Ca1.5th 216 [].) Failure to timely file a supplemental brief may result in the
dismissal of the appeal as abandoned.”
On July 10, 2023, defendant filed a seven-page typewritten supplemental brief. In
the brief, defendant contends that the “trial court allowed prosecution to proceed with a
theory where malice was imputed to a person based solely on the person’s participation
[in] a crime. Due to these actions petitioner should be resentenced according to 1170.95
(now 1172.6) and supplemental brief granted.” Defendant further states that his petition
should have been granted because “the trial court allowed prosecution to proceed with a
theory where malice was imputed to defendant based solely on defendant’s participation
[in] a crime (being initial aggressor in the crime of vandalism or assault with no right to
self defense in a sudden and perilous counter attack.” We disagree. In this case, no
malice was imputed. Defendant was the actual shooter who killed the victim.
At the hearing on defendant’s section 1172.6 petition, the trial court stated:
“I did have an opportunity to review the court file, and actually, I was able to
review what [defendant] attached to his petition, which included the jury instructions and
closing argument. And based on my review of the court file, the attachments, including
the jury instructions and closing arguments, [defendant’s] petition will be denied.
“I do also have a recollection of the case. [Defendant] was the actual shooter in
this matter that led to the death of the victim. I gave jury instructions involving first and
second degree. I also gave manslaughter instructions based only on the sudden quarrel,
heat of passion, imperfect self-defense.
“So based on the fact that [defendant] is the actual killer and that there were no
instructions regarding felony murder and/or the natural probable consequence theory, and
the fact that this is not a case where malice is imputed based solely on the participation in
the crime, I’m going to deny the petition for resentencing.”
Thereafter, the court asked if either party wanted to be heard. Defense counsel
wanted the record to indicate a “defense objection for hearsay and foundation.” The
court responded: “Yes. So your objection’s noted for the record. Again, the petition is
denied. Also, just for the record, I did review the felony information in which he—it was
alleged and found true that the special allegation that [defendant] personally, intentionally
discharged a firearm, which led to the victim’s death, was found true by the jurors as
well. So over the defense objection, the petition’s denied.”
Based on the above and our independent review of the record, we find that the trial
court correctly determined defendant is ineligible for relief under section 1172.6.
(Delgadillo, supra, 12 Cal.5th at p. 233.)
DISPOSITION The order denying defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 is
Not to be published in official reports.
MILLER J.
FIELDS J.