Court Opinion

ID: 9545147
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:07:12.26543+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:16:18.741559
License: Public Domain

Filed 8/7/23 P. v. Graham CA1/5
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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 FIVE

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A165018
 v.
 MARK ALAN GRAHAM,                                                      (Solano County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. FCR347124)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 81
(2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 721, § 1), which “amended [Penal
Code] section 1385 to provide guidance regarding the exercise of discretion in
dismissing sentencing enhancements.” (People v. Anderson (2023)
88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238, review granted Apr. 19, 2023, S278786 (Anderson).)1
Defendant and appellant Mark Alan Graham (appellant) contends the
amendments obligated the trial court to dismiss a 25-years-to-life
enhancement for personal and intentional discharge of a firearm causing
great bodily injury (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)) added to the sentence for a robbery
conviction, as well as enhancements added to a stayed assault conviction.
Because the court concluded dismissal of the 25-years-to-life enhancement
would not be “in the furtherance of justice” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1)), we conclude

         1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                               1
the trial court was not required to dismiss the enhancements at issue on
appeal, despite the use of the word “shall” in section 1385, subdivisions
(c)(2)(B) & (c)(2)(C).
                               BACKGROUND
      In September 2017, while armed with a firearm, appellant and an
accomplice robbed a marijuana grow operation, shooting one of the victims in
the leg.2 In September 2021, a jury convicted appellant of robbery (§ 211),
attempted robbery (§§ 664, 211), being a felon in possession of a firearm
(§ 29800, subd. (a)), and assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)). The jury
found true an enhancement to the robbery charge for personal and
intentional discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury (§ 12022.53,
subd. (d)), and enhancements to the assault charge for personal use of a
firearm (§ 12022.5) and personal infliction of great bodily injury (§ 12022.7,
subd. (a)).
      In April 2022, the trial court sentenced appellant to a total term of 27
years to life, comprised of the low term of two years on the robbery conviction,
plus 25 years to life on the firearm enhancement. Appellant argued the
amendments to section 1385 required the court to dismiss the enhancement,
but the court concluded it retained discretion and found it would not be “in
the interest of justice” to dismiss the enhancement. The court ordered that
the sentence on the attempted robbery charge would run concurrently, and
the court stayed the sentences on the remaining two counts under section
654. The stayed sentence on the assault conviction was 15 years, including a
10-year firearm enhancement and a 3-year great bodily injury enhancement.
      The present appeal followed.

      2 It is unnecessary to detail the underlying crimes to resolve the legal

issue on appeal.

                                       2
                                   DISCUSSION
       “Senate Bill 81, effective January 1, 2022, amended section 1385 ‘ “to
specify factors that the trial court must consider when deciding whether to
strike enhancements from a defendant’s sentence in the interests of
justice.” ’ ” (People v. Ortiz (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 1087, 1093, review granted
Apr. 12, 2023, S278894 (Ortiz).) The legislation added subdivision (c)(1),
which provides, “Notwithstanding any other law, the court shall dismiss an
enhancement if it is in the furtherance of justice to do so, except if dismissal
of that enhancement is prohibited by any initiative statute.” (§ 1385,
subd. (c)(1).) And the legislation added subdivision (c)(2), which provides, “In
exercising its discretion under [subdivision (c)], the court shall consider and
afford great weight to evidence offered by the defendant to prove that any of
the mitigating circumstances in [the subparagraphs to subdivision (c)(2)] are
present. Proof of the presence of one or more of these circumstances weighs
greatly in favor of dismissing the enhancement, unless the court finds that
dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety. ‘Endanger
public safety’ means there is a likelihood that the dismissal of the
enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to
others.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2).)
      Two listed “mitigating circumstances” are at issue in the present case.
Subdivision (c)(2)(C) identifies as one circumstance, when “[t]he application
of an enhancement could result in a sentence of over 20 years. In this
instance, the enhancement shall be dismissed.” (§ 1385, subd. (c)(2)(C), italics
added.) And subdivision (c)(2)(B) identifies as another circumstance, when
“[m]ultiple enhancements are alleged in a single case. In this instance, all
enhancements beyond a single enhancement shall be dismissed.” (Italics
added.) Appellant contends the italicized language in each of those

                                        3
subdivisions means the trial court had no discretion and was required to
dismiss the 25-years-to-life firearm enhancement, as well as the stayed
enhancements to the sentence on the assault charge.3
      The court in Anderson, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th 233, rejected the
statutory interpretation advanced by appellant in the present case. There,
the defendant challenged a 23-year sentence, arguing that “shall” in section
1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B) and (C) mandated that the trial court strike one of
two prior serious felony enhancements. (Id. at pp. 235–236, 239.) Anderson
reasoned, “If we were to read section 1385, subdivision (c)(2)(B) and (C), in
isolation, then [the defendant’s] argument would appear correct—use of the
term ‘shall’ in a statute is generally mandatory, not permissive. However,
‘we are not permitted to pluck this phrase out of its placement in the statute
and consider it in isolation; instead, we are required to consider where it fits
into the “ ‘ “context of the statute as a whole.” ’ ” ’ [Citation.] Here, the
statement that a court ‘shall’ dismiss certain enhancements appears as a
subpart to the general provision that a ‘court shall dismiss an enhancement if
it is in the furtherance of justice to do so.’ (§ 1385, subd. (c)(1), italics added.)
In other words, the dismissal of the enhancement is conditioned on a court’s
finding dismissal is in the interest of justice.” (Anderson, at p. 239; see also

      3 Appellant cites to nowhere in the record where he requested dismissal

of the enhancements on the stayed assault charge under section 1385,
subdivision (c)(2)(B). This does not result in forfeiture of his claim, because
he argues imposition of the enhancements resulted in an unauthorized
sentence. (Anderson, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at p. 239, fn. 7.) In any event,
we reject appellant’s statutory interpretation claim as to subdivisions
(c)(2)(B) and (c)(2)(C) on the same basis. And the trial court’s determination
that dismissal of the 25-years-to-life enhancement was not in furtherance of
justice means the court necessarily would have reached the same conclusion
as to the shorter stayed enhancements. Appellant does not argue to the
contrary.

                                          4
Ortiz, supra, 87 Cal.App.5th at p. 1098 [although “the Legislature has
invested the enumerated mitigating circumstances with great weight,” “the
ultimate question before the trial court remains whether it is in the
furtherance of justice to dismiss an enhancement”].)
      The Anderson court continued, “[I]f we were to read subdivision
(c)(2)(B) and (C) as mandatory, then the existence of those factors ‘would not
“weigh greatly” in favor of dismissal—it would weigh dispositively.’ ”
(Anderson, supra, 88 Cal.App.5th at pp. 239–240.) Anderson pointed out that
its interpretation preserving trial court discretion found support in a letter
from the author of Senate Bill No. 81 “placed by unanimous consent in the
Senate Journal.” (Anderson, at p. 240.) That letter stated, “[A]mendments
taken on Aug. 30, 2021 remove the presumption that a judge must rule to
dismiss a sentence enhancement if certain circumstances are present, and
instead replace[ ] that presumption with a ‘great weight’ standard where
these circumstances are present. The retention of the word ‘shall’ in [section]
1385(c)(3)(B) and (C) should not be read as a retention of the previous
presumption language—the judge’s discretion is preserved.” (Sen. Nancy
Skinner, letter to Sect. of the Sen. (Sept. 10, 2021) 121 Sen. J. (2021-2022
Reg. Sess.) p. 2638; see also Anderson, at p. 240.)4
      Because the trial court expressly found dismissal of the 25-years-to-life
enhancement was not in the interest of justice, the court was not obligated to
dismiss the enhancement (or the additional stayed enhancements).5

      4 At the time of enactment, the mitigating circumstances were in

section 1385, subdivision (c)(3), but the Legislature moved them to section
1385, subdivision (c)(2) the following year. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58 (Assem. Bill.
No. 200 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)), § 15.)
      5 For the first time in his reply brief, appellant suggests the

amendments to section 1385 “at the very least, require[] dismissal where
dismissal would not endanger public safety.” We need not address

                                        5
Appellant does not argue the trial court abused its discretion, so his claim
requires no further discussion.
                                  DISPOSITION
      The trial court’s judgment is affirmed.

                                                    SIMONS, J.

We concur.

JACKSON, P. J.

CHOU, J.

(A165018)

arguments made for the first time in a reply brief. (Proctor v. Vishay
Intertechnology, Inc. (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1258, 1273–1274.)

                                       6