People v. Grandberry CA1/1

Filed 1/17/24 P. v. Grandberry CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A167349 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Del Norte County Super. Ct. v. No. CRPB165093) HENRY LEE GRANDBERRY, Defendant and Appellant.

I. BACKGROUND Henry Lee Grandberry was serving a life sentence for murder when, on April 11, 2017, a jury found him guilty of felony possession of a dirk or dagger while confined in state prison. (Pen. Code,1 § 4502, subd. (a).) Grandberry admitted to two prior strike offenses (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12)—a 1996 conviction for first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and a 1988 conviction for second degree robbery (§ 211)—as well as a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). (People v. Grandberry (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 599, 602, 604.) The trial court, however, subsequently allowed Granberry to withdraw his admission to the 1996 strike due to an incorrect

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. All rule references are 1

to the California Rules of Court.

1

admonition as to its consequences. At sentencing on August 10, 2017, the trial court sentenced Grandberry to a total prison term of nine years, to run consecutively to his current sentence of 84 years to life. (Id. at p. 604.) Specifically, Grandberry was sentenced to the four-year aggravated term for the offense, which was doubled due to the single prior strike, along with one additional year for the prior prison term enhancement, for a total of nine years. We affirmed Grandberry’s conviction on appeal. (Id. at p. 611.) On August 24, 2022, the Del Norte County superior court appointed an attorney for Grandberry, ruling that he was entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75. With exceptions not relevant here, this section renders invalid any sentence enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, under section 667.5, subdivision (b), and it requires a full resentencing. (People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 966–968 (Carter).) The resentencing court “shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) The court may also consider postconviction factors indicating that circumstances have changed since the original sentencing. (Id., subd. (d)(3).) At the resentencing hearing on January 12, 2023, the court struck Grandberry’s one-year enhancement as required by section 1172.75, subdivision (a). The court allowed Grandberry to make a statement and present various certificates regarding rehabilitative activities he had participated in while incarcerated. It found Granberry to be “articulate and intelligent,” took him at his word that he was participating in the identified programs, and concluded that Grandberry was working toward rehabilitation.