85 Cal.App.5th 329
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- In 2014 Raymond Griffin was convicted by jury of two counts of first-degree murder with gang and multiple-murder special circumstances and firearm enhancements; sentenced to consecutive life terms (two without parole, two with 25‑year minimums) plus seven years.
- Griffin’s direct appeal was affirmed.
- Senate Bill 1437 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended §§ 188 and 189 and added Penal Code § 1172.6, creating a postconviction resentencing procedure for some felony‑murder and natural‑and‑probable‑consequences murder convictions.
- Griffin filed a § 1172.6 petition in Feb 2022; the trial court appointed counsel, held a status conference, found Griffin ineligible because he was the actual shooter, and summarily denied the petition.
- Appellate counsel filed an opening brief stating no arguable issues (a no‑issues brief) and asked the Court of Appeal to exercise its discretion to independently review the record. Griffin did not submit a supplemental brief.
- The Court of Appeal conducted an independent review, found no arguable issues, and affirmed the trial court’s denial; the court adopted the Flores/Gallo approach to review in § 1172.6 appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wende‑style procedures (independent record review + invitation to file a supplemental brief) are required in appeals from denials of § 1172.6 petitions when counsel files a no‑issues brief and defendant does not respond | People implicitly supports correctness of the trial court’s denial and the State’s interest in conserving resources (as adopted by some courts) | Appellant (Griffin) requested the court exercise discretion to independently review the record; appellate counsel filed a no‑issues brief and sought review | The Court exercised discretion to follow Flores/Gallo: invite a supplemental brief and conduct independent review even if none filed; if no arguable issue is found, issue a short unpublished opinion affirming the denial |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying Griffin’s § 1172.6 petition (i.e., whether Griffin is ineligible because he was the actual shooter) | Trial court found Griffin was the actual shooter and thus ineligible for § 1172.6 relief; the People argued the denial was proper | Griffin challenged the denial by appealing; counsel filed a no‑issues brief asserting no reversible error | After independent review the Court found no arguable issue and affirmed the trial court’s denial (Griffin was ineligible as the actual shooter) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (establishes appellate procedures when appointed counsel files a no‑issues brief)
- People v. Kelly, 40 Cal.4th 106 (clarifies Wende protections and limits to direct appeals of right)
- People v. Cole, 52 Cal.App.5th 1023 (discusses procedures for § 1172.6 appeals when counsel finds no issues)
- People v. Flores, 54 Cal.App.5th 266 (advocates independent review in § 1172.6 appeals even when no supplemental brief is filed)
- People v. Gallo, 57 Cal.App.5th 594 (supports Flores approach requiring independent review)
- People v. Scott, 58 Cal.App.5th 1127 (panel agreed with Serrano/Cole approach but noted courts may still review the record)
- People v. Figueras, 61 Cal.App.5th 108 (discusses counsel/or court notice and review procedures in postconviction appeals)
- People v. Serrano, 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (adopted a resource‑conserving approach to no‑issues postconviction appeals)
- People v. Allison, 55 Cal.App.5th 449 (endorses independent review in the interests of justice)
- People v. Strong, 13 Cal.5th 698 (addresses related appellate-review principles)
- Lassiter v. Dep’t of Social Servs., 452 U.S. 18 (sets criteria for procedural protections balancing private and governmental interests)