Court Opinion

ID: 9412526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-31 18:06:04.556046+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:41:32.497313
License: Public Domain

Filed 7/31/23 P. v. Marr CA2/6
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                         DIVISION SIX

 THE PEOPLE,                                                 2d Crim. No. B325667
                                                           (Super. Ct. No. PA043262)
      Plaintiff and Respondent,                              (Los Angeles County)

 v.

 EDMOND JAY MARR,

      Defendant and Appellant.

      Edmond Jay Marr appeals the order of the trial court
denying his petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code
section 1170.91, subdivision (b).1 We appointed counsel to
represent appellant on appeal. After an examination of the
record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and
requesting that we follow the procedures set forth in People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed his
own supplemental brief, in propria persona. We affirm.

         1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
                       Procedural Background2
       In March 2005, appellant pleaded guilty to the March 1983
second degree murder of Elaine Graham and admitted that he
personally used a knife in committing the murder. (§§ 187, subd.
(a), 12022, subd. (b).) The trial court sentenced appellant to 16
years to life and imposed an additional year pursuant to section
12022, subdivision (b).
       We affirmed the conviction with modifications in a
nonpublished opinion. (People v. Marr, supra, B182366.)
       In August 2022, appellant filed a petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1170.91, subdivision (b) based on health
conditions due to his military service from July 1981 to March
1983. In his form petition, appellant stated that as a result of his
military service, he may be suffering from traumatic brain injury,
post-traumatic stress disorder, substance abuse, and mental
health problems such as anxiety, depression, and seizure
disorder. He also stated that he was sentenced before January 1,
2015, and when he was sentenced, “the judge did not consider
health conditions resulting from petitioner’s military service as a
factor in deciding the sentence.”
       The trial court denied appellant’s petition. In its ruling,
the trial court stated that appellant was “ineligible for
resentencing as section 1170.91 does not apply to life sentences.
Section 1170.91 applies only to determinate sentences imposed
pursuant to Penal Code section 1170, [subdivision (b)].” The trial
court also denied the petition because it was “repetitive in that a

      2 The following procedural background is taken from our
opinion on direct appeal. (People v. Marr (Sept. 21, 2006,
B182366) [nonpub. opn.].)

                                 2
habeas corpus petition seeking the same relief was denied on
[February 22, 2019].”
                              Discussion
       Because the instant appeal is from an order denying
postconviction relief rather than a first appeal as of right from a
criminal conviction, appellant is not entitled to our independent
review of the record pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d
436, or its federal constitutional counterpart, Anders v. California
(1967) 386 U.S. 738. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 221-
222, 230; see People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119
[independent judicial review mandated by Anders applies only to
first appeal as of right]; People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th
496, 503.) However, he is entitled to appellate consideration of
any contentions raised in his supplemental brief. (See Delgadillo,
at p. 232; Serrano, at p. 503.)
       In his supplemental brief, appellant states that he “recently
filed” a motion with the Los Angeles County Superior Court and
the California Board of Parole Hearings to request a hearing
pursuant to People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261. According
to appellant, he qualifies as a “‘youth offender’” “[b]y law” because
he was 25 years of age in 1983 when he committed the murder
(citing §§ 1203.1, 1016.7, subds. (a), (b)).
       We decline to address this contention, which is apparently
still pending before the superior court.
       Appellant also contends the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) is “required to refer” him
for resentencing, citing People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th
393 (Monroe), Senate Bill No. 483, and section 1172.75.
       Senate Bill No. 483 added former section 1171.1, now
section 1172.75, to the Penal Code. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §3;

                                 3
Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.) That section established the procedure
to benefit state prisoners whose sentences are not currently valid
due to recent changes in the law involving sentence
enhancements.
       For example, “[s]ection 1172.75, subdivision (a) provides
that ‘[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to
January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5,
except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a
sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.’ [Citation.] Once
the [CDCR] identifies those persons ‘currently serving a term for
a judgment that includes an enhancement described in
subdivision (a)’ to the sentencing court, ‘the court shall recall the
sentence and resentence the defendant.’ [Citation.]” (Monroe,
supra, 85 Cal.App.5th at p. 399.)
       Here, appellant does not meet the statutory requirement
for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 because his one-year
sentence enhancement was imposed pursuant to section 12022,
subdivision (b), not section 667.5, subdivision (b).
                                Disposition
       The order denying appellant’s petition for resentencing
pursuant to section 1170.91, subdivision (b) is affirmed.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                                  YEGAN, J.
We concur:

             GILBERT, P. J.

             CODY, J.

                                 4
                  David W. Stuart, Judge
            Superior Court County of Los Angeles
              ______________________________

     Karyn H. Bucur, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

     No appearance for Respondent.