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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.
7