Court Opinion

ID: 9406012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-06-29 17:03:43.60516+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:26.229897
License: Public Domain

Filed 6/29/23 P. v. Grandison CA3
                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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
                            THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                    (Sacramento)
                                         ----

    THE PEOPLE,                                                                                C097599

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                      (Super. Ct. No. 08F05013)

           v.

    SHRERON GRANDISON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Shreron Grandison appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate
his attempted murder conviction under Penal Code former section 1170.95 (now section
1172.6).1 Appointed counsel for defendant has asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. Defendant filed his petition in
April 2022. Effective June 30, 2022, section 1170.95 was renumbered section 1172.6,
with no change in text. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 10.) Although defendant filed his petition
under former section 1170.95, we will refer to the statute as section 1172.6 for
consistency.

                                                             1
appeal and defendant has filed a supplemental brief. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436 (Wende); People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216.) We have considered
defendant’s brief and will affirm the trial court’s order.
                                      BACKGROUND
         In 2009, a jury found defendant guilty of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd.
(a)), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)), burglary (§ 459), and
misdemeanor child endangerment (§ 273a, subd. (b)). The jury also found true
allegations defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) as to
the attempted murder and assault counts, and that defendant personally used a deadly
weapon, a knife, as to the attempted murder count (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also
found true an allegation that the attempted murder was willful, deliberate, and
premeditated. (§ 664, subd. (a).) On direct appeal, we affirmed the judgment. (People v.
Grandison (Nov. 23, 2011, C062727) [nonpub. opn.].) We summarized the facts in the
direct appeal opinion.2 In short, defendant stabbed the victim, his ex-girlfriend’s new
boyfriend, multiple times. (Grandison, supra, C062727.)
         In 2022, defendant filed a petition for resentencing under section 1172.6, alleging
he had been prosecuted under a theory of attempted murder under the natural and
probable consequences doctrine; he was convicted of attempted murder; and he could not
currently be convicted of attempted murder because of changes made to sections 188 and
189, effective January 1, 2019.
         The court appointed counsel and received briefing from the parties. The court
held a hearing and both parties submitted on the briefing. The court denied the petition,
saying no vicarious liability instructions had been read to the jury at trial, so “the jury
could not have based any finding of fact on an invalid theory under the current law.”

2   The opinion is part of the record on appeal.

                                               2
                                       DISCUSSION
       Defendant’s appointed counsel has asked this court to conduct an independent
review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal.
(Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised of his right to file a supplemental
brief within 30 days. Defendant filed a supplemental brief.
       The California Supreme Court has considered whether the Wende process applies
to a trial court’s order denying a petition for postconviction relief under section 1172.6
and concluded such procedures are not required. (People v. Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th
at pp. 221-222.) The Supreme Court laid out applicable procedures for such cases,
saying, where, as here, a defendant has filed a supplemental brief, “the Court of Appeal is
required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that brief and to issue a written
opinion. The filing of a supplemental brief or letter does not compel an independent
review of the entire record to identify unraised issues.” (Id. at p. 232.)
       Defendant does not raise any specific arguments in his supplemental brief. Rather,
he states he is very remorseful for the attempted murder and has made rehabilitative
efforts during his incarceration. Neither of these statements affects the theory under
which defendant was convicted. The jury at defendant’s trial was instructed using
CALCRIM No. 600 (Attempted Murder), CALCRIM No. 601 (Attempted Murder:
Deliberation and Premeditation), CALCRIM No. 603 (Attempted Voluntary
Manslaughter: Heat of Passion – Lesser Included Offense), and CALCRIM No. 604
(Attempted Voluntary Manslaughter: Imperfect Self-Defense – Lesser Included
Offense). The jury was not instructed on any theory under the natural and probable
consequences doctrine and could not have convicted defendant on a theory on which it
was not instructed. (People v. Soto (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 1043, 1055.) None of
defendant’s activities in prison change this fact, and he thus remains ineligible for relief
under section 1172.6.

                                              3
                                     DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s order denying the petition is affirmed.

                                                     /s/
                                                 HORST, J.

We concur:

    /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

    /s/
HULL, J.

 Judge of the Placer County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                            4