People v. Groce CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D084727 · 2025-11-26 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD195250
Trial judge: David J. Danielsen (retired judge)
Outcome: affirmed — Affirmed with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: William S. Dato (author), Judith D. McConnell, Laurence D. Rubin

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T03:36Z · confidence low

The trial court resentenced the defendant under Penal Code section 1172.75, striking invalid enhancements and a prior, but denied the defendant's Marsden motion for new counsel and dismissed only some of his strike priors. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, finding no reasonably arguable issues on independent review, and remanded solely to correct the abstract of judgment.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Marsden motion for new counsel “Whether the court erred in denying Groce’s Marsden motion; and”	unclear	not reached	unsure The appellate court identified the issue in the Wende brief but concluded its independent review disclosed no reasonably arguable issues, effectively declining to analyze the merits of the Marsden denial.
Dismissal of only some strike priors “Whether the court abused its discretion when it chose to dismiss only some of his strike priors.”	abuse of discretion	not reached	unsure The court listed this as a potentially arguable issue but ultimately found no reasonably arguable issues after independent review, leaving the trial court's discretion unchallenged.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by the appellate court when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying potentially arguable issues while stating no arguable issues exist.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — Establishes the standard for determining whether a defendant is entitled to new counsel.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion is procedurally sound as it correctly follows the Wende/Anders protocol by conducting an independent review of the record. However, it is a 'sound with gaps' opinion because it identifies two specific issues raised by counsel but provides no substantive legal analysis or reasoning for why those issues are not reasonably arguable, relying solely on the conclusion that the review disclosed no issues.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:09Z · confidence low

On a Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing, the trial court denied Groce's Marsden motion (after which he represented himself), struck a section 667, subdivision (a) prior and two invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison priors, dismissed strike priors only as to counts 9 through 16 as the original sentencing court had, reduced restitution fines, and imposed 26 years to life. On appeal, counsel filed a Wende/Anders brief, Groce filed no supplemental brief, and the Court of Appeal independently reviewed the record, found no arguable issues, affirmed, and remanded solely to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the remaining valid prison prior.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Denial of Groce's Marsden motion before the section 1172.75 resentencing hearing “Whether the court erred in denying Groce’s Marsden motion”	unclear	correct	unsure The opinion does not describe the Marsden colloquy or the trial court's reasons; it reports only that counsel flagged the issue and that independent review disclosed no arguable error. Marsden denials are reviewed for abuse of discretion, and nothing in the opinion suggests the court failed to hold a hearing or inquire, but the record quoted is too thin to independently verify.
Decision at resentencing to dismiss strike priors only as to counts 9 through 16, following the original sentencing court's disposition, rather than dismissing all strikes “Whether the court abused its discretion when it chose to dismiss only some of his strike priors.”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court A court resentencing under section 1172.75 has discretion whether to strike priors under section 1385, and the People opposed further leniency on public-safety grounds. The trial court struck the nickel prior and two prison priors and reduced the sentence by seven years; retaining strikes on the earlier counts, consistent with the original disposition, is within the range of reasonable choices. The opinion gives no detail of the court's stated reasons, so agreement rests on the Wende review rather than a visible analysis.
Preparation of the abstract of judgment omitting the one remaining valid section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior enhancement “the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed because it does not include the remaining prison prior under section 667.5, subdivision (b)”	de novo	error (procedure)	agree with court The oral pronouncement controls over the abstract, and a clerical discrepancy in the abstract may be corrected at any time; remanding with directions to amend and forward the abstract to CDCR is the standard remedy. The court properly caught this on independent review.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal independently reviews the entire record to determine whether any arguable issue exists.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds an appeal wholly frivolous should so advise the court and refer to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118 — A defendant seeking substitution of appointed counsel must be permitted to state the reasons for the request, and the court must inquire into the complaints before ruling.
missed: People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 — Wende independent review is not constitutionally required in appeals from postconviction proceedings; when counsel finds no issues the court must notify the defendant of the right to file a supplemental brief, may dismiss if none is filed, and retains discretion to conduct independent review. The court here followed that notice procedure and reviewed independently, but did not address whether Wende applies to a section 1172.75 resentencing appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court followed the Wende/Anders procedure, offered Groce a chance to file a supplemental brief, independently reviewed the record, and caught a genuine clerical error in the abstract of judgment, reaching a defensible result. It did not address whether full Wende review is required in an appeal from a section 1172.75 resentencing under Delgadillo, and it offers no substantive analysis of the two issues counsel identified, so the result cannot be fully verified from the opinion alone.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 11/26/25 P. v. Groce CA4/1 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.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084727

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD195250)

MARK GLENN GROCE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David J. Danielsen, Judge. (Retired Judge of the S.D. Sup. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Affirmed with directions. Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. Mark Glenn Groce appeals following a resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 His appellate counsel filed a brief stating no arguable issues could be found. (See generally People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende); Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders).) We have independently reviewed the record and agree there are no reasonably arguable issues. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In 2006, Groce was charged with failure to register as a sex offender (§ 290, subd. (g)(2); count 1), burglary (§ 459; counts 2, 5 and 9), forgery by possessing a blank check (§ 475, subd. (b); count 3), receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a); count 4), forgery of a name (§ 470, subd. (a); counts 6 and 10), forgery of a check (§ 470, subd. (d); counts 7 and 11), grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a); counts 8 and 12), unlawful taking and driving of a vehicle (§ 10851, subd. (a); count 13), receiving a stolen vehicle (§ 496d; count 14), attempting to dissuade a witness from reporting a crime (§ 136.1, subd. (b)(1); count 15), dissuading a witness by force or threat (§ 136.1, subd. (c)(1) ; count 16), and attempting to prevent and dissuade a witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2); count 17). The information further alleged three prison priors (under former § 667.5, subd. (b)), one serious felony prior (§ 667, subd. (a)), and four strike priors (§§ 667, subd. (b)–(i), 1170.12).

Following a jury trial, Groce was convicted on counts 3 through 16,2 and the court found true all alleged priors. Counts 1, 2, and 17 were 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 On count 16, the jury convicted Groce of a lesser offense of attempting to dissuade a witness (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(2)). (People v. Groce (Aug. 31, 2010 D055456) [nonpub. opn.] (Groce).) 2 dismissed prior to sentencing, along with his prior strike convictions as to counts 9 through 16. The court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 33 years to life, including eight years for his priors. In 2010, this court affirmed the judgment in nearly every respect, but vacated his convictions on counts 6 and 10. (Groce, supra, D055456.) In 2022, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the court that Groce was serving a prison term which included a potentially invalid prior prison term enhancement. Although he was assigned counsel, Groce elected to represent himself after the court heard and denied his Marsden motion.3 In advance of his resentencing hearing, Groce filed a brief requesting dismissal of two invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison priors; dismissal of two section 667, subdivision (e)(2)(A) enhancements; and reduction of all eligible felony theft offenses to misdemeanors pursuant to section 17, subdivision (b). The People opposed Groce’s request, reasoning there was “clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” The court ultimately struck his section 667, subdivision (a) nickel prior and two invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison priors, followed the original sentencing court’s disposition by dismissing his strike priors as to counts 9 through 16 only, and reduced his restitution fines. His final sentence was 26 years to life, including a one year enhancement for the third remaining prison prior.4 3 People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118. 4 During our review of the record, we discovered the abstract of judgment does not accurately state the sentence imposed because it does not include the remaining prison prior under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Although we affirm the court’s orders, we will remand with directions to correct the abstract of judgment. 3 DISCUSSION Appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436, asking this court to review the entire record. In line with Anders, supra, 386 U.S. 738, counsel has identified two potentially arguable issues to assist with our review: 1. Whether the court erred in denying Groce’s Marsden motion; and 2. Whether the court abused its discretion when it chose to dismiss only some of his strike priors. Our review of the record as mandated by Wende and Anders has disclosed no reasonably arguable appellate issues. We offered Groce the opportunity to file a supplemental brief on his own behalf. He has not responded. Competent counsel has represented him on this appeal.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The case is remanded to the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect the remaining (valid) section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior. Once the abstract is amended, the court shall forward the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

DATO, J. WE CONCUR:

MCCONNELL, P. J.

RUBIN, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12
People v. Marsden Crim. 14119 · 1970-02-26