From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Grigsby

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Jun 20, 2024
No. G063745 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)

Opinion

G063745

06-20-2024

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN JOHN GRIGSBY, Defendant and Appellant.

Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.


NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, No. 10SF0563 Lewis W. Clapp, Judge. Affirmed.

Laura Vavakin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

OPINION

O'LEARY, P. J.

We appointed counsel to represent Melvin John Grigsby on appeal. Counsel filed a brief that set forth the facts of the case. Counsel did not argue against her client but advised the court she found no issues to argue on his behalf.

Counsel filed a brief following the procedures outlined in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). The court in Wende explained a Wende brief is one that sets forth a summary of proceedings and facts but raises no specific issues. Under these circumstances, the court must conduct an independent review of the entire record. When the appellant himself raises specific issues in a Wende proceeding, we must expressly address them in our opinion and explain why they fail. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 120, 124.)

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders), to assist the court with its independent review, counsel provided the court with information as to one issue that might arguably support an appeal-whether the trial court erred by denying Grigsby's request for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, which was based on its calculation that he had completed his sentence in this case, but he had not been released from prison since being admitted to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (DCR) in July 2014.

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

We gave Grigsby 30 days to file written argument on his own behalf. Thirty days have passed, and he has not filed any written argument.

We have reviewed the record in accordance with our obligations under Wende and Anders, and we found no arguable issues on appeal. We affirm the postjudgment order.

FACTS

In 2014, Grigsby pleaded guilty to first degree burglary (§§ 459, 460, subd. (a); count 1), admitted one strike prior (§§ 667, subds. (d) &(e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b) &(c)(2)(A)), three one-year prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and a five-year enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced Grigsby to 10 years in prison: four years on count 1 (middle term), plus five years (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), plus one year (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court stayed two of the three prison prior enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Grigsby received total credits of 2,065 days.

Grigsby petitioned the trial court for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. At a hearing, the court observed that on July 11, 2014, Grigsby had received a 10-year sentence with five and a half years of custody credit. Therefore, when Grigsby began serving the sentence, he had only about four and a half years remaining on his sentence. The parties had no information that Grigsby had been released since being admitted to the DCR in 2014.

The prosecution opined Grigsby was likely sentenced to multiple sentences and was now serving one of the other sentences. The trial court agreed that was possible but indicated it did not know where any other sentence originated. The court indicated it was clear the Orange County sentence imposed in 2014 had been completed.

The trial court denied the request for resentencing, finding Grigsby was no longer in custody on this case and, therefore, not eligible for relief. Grigsby filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION

"Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5, subdivision (b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. [Citation.] Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2019, ch. 590) ([SB] 136) amended section 667.5 by limiting the prior prison term enhancement to only prior terms for sexually violent offenses. [Citations.] Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally invalid. [Citation.]" (People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-380 (Burgess).)

"Later, in 2021, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) .... This bill sought to make the changes implemented by [SB] 136 retroactive. [Citation.] It took effect on January 1, 2022, and added former section 1171.1, now section 1172.75, to the Penal Code. [Citations.]" (Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 380.)

"Section 1172.75 states that '[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.' [Citation.] The statute further establishes a mechanism to provide affected defendants a remedy for those legally invalid enhancements. Subdivision (b) of section 1172.75 directs the Secretary of the [DCR] and the correctional administrator of each county to 'identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) and . . . provide the name of each person, along with the person's date of birth and the relevant case number or docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.' [Citation.] The statute provides this is to be done in two groups. First, '[b]y March 1, 2022, for individuals who have served their base term and any other enhancements and are currently serving a sentence based on the [affected] enhancement.' [Citation.] And second, '[b]y July 1, 2022, for all other individuals.' [Citation.]" (Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 380, italics added.)

The trial court correctly determined Grigsby was not eligible for relief under section 1172.75 because he was not currently serving the sentence imposed for the prior prison term enhancements. The sentences for these enhancements had been completed.

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order is affirmed.

WE CONCUR: MOTOIKE, J. GOODING, J.


Summaries of

People v. Grigsby

California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division
Jun 20, 2024
No. G063745 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)
Case details for

People v. Grigsby

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MELVIN JOHN GRIGSBY, Defendant…

Court:California Court of Appeals, Fourth District, Third Division

Date published: Jun 20, 2024

Citations

No. G063745 (Cal. Ct. App. Jun. 20, 2024)