People v. Campbell CA2/2

Opinion

Filed 8/18/26 P. v. Campbell CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B346313

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. GA013988-01) v.

MAURICE CORNELL CAMPBELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

Defendant and appellant Maurice Cornell Campbell (defendant) appeals from a judgment after resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Defendant’s appointed counsel 1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. identified no arguable issues and filed a brief requesting we exercise our discretion to conduct an independent review of the record as set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Defendant filed a supplemental brief alleging the court abused its discretion. We have undertaken an independent review of the record and find no merit to defendant’s contentions. However, our review of the record has disclosed an error on the amended abstract of judgment. We remand the matter for purposes of correcting the error and otherwise affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND In 1993, defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a); counts 1 & 2) and two counts of assault on a peace officer (§ 245, subd. (d)(2); counts 3 & 4). As to counts 1 and 2, the jury further found defendant’s attempt was willful, deliberate, and premeditated and that defendant “personally used a 9 mm AK47 assault rifle within the meaning of [former] Penal Code section 12022.5(b)(2).” Defendant admitted three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced defendant to life with the possibility of parole on count 1, plus five years for the firearm enhancement and a concurrent life term plus five years for the firearm enhancement on count 2. Terms on counts 3 and 4 were stayed pursuant to section 654 and sentence was stayed on the three 1- year prior prison term enhancements. The judgment was affirmed on direct appeal. (People v. Campbell (Apr. 3, 1995, B081976) [nonpub. opn.].)

2 In 2022, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified defendant as an individual whose sentence may include a now-invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, and therefore potentially eligible for relief pursuant to former section 1171.1, now section 1172.75. Because defendant’s enhancements were stayed, the trial court declined to recall defendant’s sentence. On appeal from the court’s 2022 order, we vacated the court’s denial and “remanded for recall of the sentence and full resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.” (People v. Campbell (Aug. 21, 2024, B329622) [nonpub. opn.].) On November 13, 2024, defendant’s hearing counsel filed a resentencing brief. In it, defendant asked the court to exercise its discretion under sections 1172.75 and 1172.1 to “reduce the sentence length, and to sentence on less related or lesser included offenses” and “dismiss enhancements under S[enate] B[ill] 81/§ 1385.” Defendant asked the court to: (1) “vacate the attempted murder convictions and special allegations and resentence [him] on … counts 3 & 4 to run concurrent, plus [10] years for the gun enhancement[s] … resulting in time served,” or (2) dismiss the special allegation on counts 1 and 2 resulting in a determinate sentencing triad of five, seven or nine years, also “resulting in time served.” Attached to his brief were select records from the CDCR, a letter of remorse, a “social history questionnaire,” letters of family and community support, defendant’s written parole plans, and certificates of completed coursework. On January 24, 2025, defendant’s wife filed a supplemental brief entitled, “Supportive resentencing factors.” On April 22, 2025, the People filed their response to defendant’s request for resentencing asking the court to strike 3 the now-invalid enhancements and otherwise keep defendant’s sentence intact. Citing People v. Serrano (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 1324, the People argued defendant’s request that the court strike the special allegation attached to counts 1 and 2 should be denied because it is not an enhancement within the meaning of section 1385, subdivision (c). The People acknowledged the changes to section 654 allowing the court the discretion to sentence on counts 3 and 4, rather than counts 1 and 2, but argued the aggravating factors outweighed any factors in mitigation. In support of the argument that defendant should be punished for attempted murder, rather than assault on a peace officer, the People pointed to the circumstances of the offense and defendant’s testimony during his 2025 parole hearing. The People argued defendant’s postconviction record is “abysmal” and weighs against any further reduction in sentence. Relevant here, in support of their filing, the People attached defendant’s parole hearing transcripts (not a part of our record), select portions of the transcripts of prior parole hearings, including the Board’s decision denying parole suitability, and letters from the Pasadena Police Department against resentencing. On May 8, 2025, defendant filed supplemental documentation in support of his request for resentencing, which contained the documentation filed in defendant’s two prior filings. On May 9, 2025, the court held a resentencing hearing during which defendant made a statement of remorse, and one of the victims made an impact statement. The court indicated it reviewed the parties’ filings and explained its duty and the bounds of its discretion. After entertaining the parties’

4 argument, the court declined to sentence defendant on the lesser included offenses (counts 3 & 4) because defendant’s actions were reflective of “a righteous attempt murder” as opposed to simply an assault. As such, the court resentenced defendant to the same term previously imposed without the addition of the three 1-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements. The court indicated the abstract of judgment should reflect defendant’s original presentence credit, as well as his “in-prison credits” which were calculated as 11,827 actual days. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.

DISCUSSION Where, as here, appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal that is not from the first appeal after conviction, we are not required to conduct an independent review of the record. (See Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 226.) However, even if we do not independently review the record to identify unraised issues in a case, we give the defendant the opportunity to file his or her own supplemental brief or letter and we then evaluate any specific arguments raised. (See id. at p. 232.) Counsel provided defendant with a copy of the record on appeal and informed him of his right to file his own supplemental brief. We notified defendant of counsel’s brief and gave defendant 30 days to file his own letter or brief stating any grounds for an appeal, contentions, or arguments he wished to be considered, and if he did not, the appeal would be dismissed. Defendant filed a supplemental brief within the time allowed, arguing the court “misunderstood and improperly limited its resentencing authority,” including the statutory presumption favoring a lesser sentence; failed to ensure removal 5 of the three 1-year prison prior enhancements; inappropriately relied on the commitment offense and failed to meaningfully consider his postconviction factors; and the cumulative effect of these errors requires remand for a new hearing. We disagree. The court expressly stated its understanding of the parties’ arguments and the available sentencing options. The parties agreed with the court’s assessment of the options upon resentencing. The court explained, in detail, the reasons for its decision. Specifically, the court noted the “overwhelmingly aggravated” facts of the commitment offense and discussed the “significant strides” defendant has made in the past “five or six years.” The court discussed at length its discretion to impose sentence on counts 3 and 4, rather than counts 1 and 2, but ultimately found it inappropriate. The court struck the three 1-year prior prison term enhancements, and this is reflected in the court’s minute orders, as well as the new November 20, 2025 abstract of judgment. The court declined to strike the two firearm enhancements because of the aggravated nature of the firearm used—an assault rifle—and the number of rounds fired at the officers. Given the court’s detailed and explicit statements, we reject the contention that the court misunderstood or misapplied its authority. Finding no error in the use of the court’s discretion, there can be no accumulation of errors. (See People v. Sedillo (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1037, 1068 [“A predicate to a claim of cumulative error is a finding of error. There can be no cumulative error if the challenged rulings were not erroneous”].) While undertaking our independent review of the record, however, we have discovered the November 20, 2025 abstract of judgment does not reflect the in-custody credits announced by the 6 court during the resentencing hearing. Specifically, the court ordered the abstract of judgment “to reflect, not only the presentence credits but also the actual days in prison,” which were calculated as 11,827 days. This is a clerical error. “Courts may correct clerical errors at any time.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)

DISPOSITION The judgment upon resentencing is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment reflecting the proper number of in-custody credits and forward a certified copy to the CDCR.

LUI, P. J. CHAVEZ, J. RICHARDSON, J.