People v. Granillo CA2/5

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 27, 2025B333916California743 words

Opinion

Opinion

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant Jorge Raymond Granillo, Jr. appeals from the trial court’s ruling on his Penal Code section 1170.181 (Proposition 47) petition for resentencing on his conviction for possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) (count 82). We reverse and remand the matter with directions set forth below. The parties are familiar with the facts and procedural history, and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) We therefore resolve this appeal by memorandum opinion pursuant to Standard 8.1 of the Standards of Judicial Administration and consistent with constitutional principles (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14 [“Decisions of the Supreme Court and courts of appeal that determine causes shall be in writing with reasons stated”]; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1263, fn. omitted [three-paragraph discussion of issue on appeal satisfies constitutional requirement because “an opinion is not a brief in reply to counsel’s arguments. [Citation.] In order to state the reasons, grounds, or principles upon which a decision is based, [an appellate court] need not discuss every case or…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.