Filed 7/29/26 P. v. McGrew CA5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE,
F089733
Plaintiff and Respondent,
(Super. Ct. No. CF91438575)
v.
STEVEN LYLE MCGREW, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A.
Kelley, Judge.
Mark Alan Hart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
-ooOoo-
* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Steven Lyle McGrew (appellant) was convicted after a
jury trial of first degree murder with a special circumstance, robbery, and assault with a
deadly weapon. He was sentenced to 16 years plus life in prison without the possibility
of parole (LWOP). The determinate term included three years for prior prison term
enhancements imposed pursuant to former section 667.5, subdivision (b) of the Penal
Code.1 In 2025, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR)
advised the trial court that appellant was eligible for resentencing pursuant to
section 1172.75 and dismissal of the prior prison term enhancements. After a contested
hearing, the court dismissed the enhancements but denied appellant’s motion to stay the
LWOP sentence for first degree murder and instead imposed a determinate term for
robbery.
On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief that summarized the facts with citations
to the record, raised no issues, and asked this court to independently review the record.
(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Appellant did not file a supplemental brief on
his own behalf. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On December 4, 1992, appellant and codefendants Johnnie Bell, Winona
Weathers, and John Crips were convicted after a joint jury trial of count 1, first degree
murder of William McClelland (§ 187, subd. (a)), with the special circumstance that the
murder was committed while engaged in the commission of a robbery (§ 190.2,
subd. (a)(17)); count 2, first degree robbery of William McClelland in an inhabited
dwelling (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (b)); and count 4, assault with a deadly weapon of a
second victim (§ 245, subd. (a)(2)).
1 All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
2.
As to counts 1 and 2, the jury found appellant personally used a firearm
(§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The trial court found he had one prior serious felony conviction
enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)), and three prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)).
On July 20, 1993, the trial court sentenced appellant to an aggregate sentence of
16 years plus LWOP: the LWOP term for count 1, first degree murder with the special
circumstance, with consecutive terms of five years for the firearm enhancement attached
to count 1, three years for count 4, assault with a deadly weapon, five years for the prior
serious felony conviction enhancement, and three years for the prior prison term
enhancements. The court stayed the remaining sentences.2
The judgment against appellant was affirmed on appeal. (People v. McGrew et al.
(Apr. 5, 1996, F020046) [nonpub. opn.].)
Section 1172.75 Notice
In 2023, the Secretary of CDCR advised the trial court that appellant was serving a
sentence that included prior prison term enhancements pursuant to former section 667.5,
subdivision (b) that were no longer valid, and he was eligible for recall and resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.75.
The trial court appointed counsel and placed the matter on calendar. Appellant
requested a full resentencing hearing.
The Parties’ Briefs
The People filed a resentencing brief pursuant to section 1172.75 and conceded
the three prior prison term enhancements were now invalid after amendments to
section 667.5, subdivision (b), and must be dismissed. However, the People argued
appellant’s sentence should not be further reduced because he was “a career criminal and
any further reduction would be contrary to the law, contrary to the interests of justice, and
2 While appellant was charged with a special circumstance, the People elected to not
seek the death penalty.
3.
would endanger public safety.” Appellant was previously convicted of 12 felony
offenses, he was sentenced to prison four times and repeatedly violated probation and
parole.
In appellant’s resentencing brief, he argued the trial court should reduce his
aggregate sentence because he had served over 30 years in prison. Appellant asserted
that as a result of numerous statutory amendments, the court now had discretion to strike
or dismiss several parts of his sentence, and requested imposition of a determinate term
for count 2, robbery, as the principal term, with the attached firearm enhancement, and
for the court to stay the LWOP term for murder based on statutory amendments to
section 654, which now permits the court to stay the greater term. The court should also
strike the prior serious felony enhancement and the second firearm enhancement, based
on statutory amendments to section 667, subdivision (a) and section 1385.
THE TRIAL COURT’S RESENTENCING HEARING
On April 23, 2025, the trial court convened the section 1172.75 recall and
resentencing hearing. Defense counsel restated the arguments in the resentencing brief.
The prosecutor argued it would not be in the interests of justice to reduce appellant’s
sentence beyond dismissal of the three prior prison term enhancements given the nature
of the current convictions and his prior convictions.
The trial court dismissed the three prior prison term enhancements. The court
acknowledged appellant was eligible for a full resentencing and it had discretion to do so,
but denied appellant’s request to further reduce his sentence.
“[A]s pointed out by [the prosecutor], this was a murder committed
during the commission of a robbery with a firearm. … This is not a case
where one would choose a subordinate term other than—one would choose
a base term other than [first degree] murder.
“The [c]ourt notes [appellant had] 13 prior felonies prior to the
three felonies that committed him on this offense. Those prior felonies did
include sodomy, kidnapping, rape by force and robbery. There was an
allegation of a firearm during that and then various other drug and theft
4.
felonies which brought us to the 1990 offenses which are the subject of this
hearing.
“So I don’t believe it would be in the interest of justice to
subordinate [c]ount [o]ne in this case.”
The trial court imposed an aggregate sentence of 13 years plus LWOP, based on
LWOP for count 1, first degree murder with the special circumstance, plus consecutive
terms of five years for the section 12022.5, subdivision (b) personal use enhancement,
three years for count 4, assault with a deadly weapon, and five years for the prior serious
felony conviction enhancement. The court stayed the sentence imposed for count 2,
robbery, and the other enhancements.
On April 29, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s
resentencing of April 23, 2025.
DISCUSSION
As noted above, appellate counsel filed a Wende brief with this court. The brief
also includes counsel’s declaration that appellant was advised he could file his own brief
with this court. On May 13, 2026, this court advised appellant by letter that he could file
a supplemental letter or brief raising any arguable issues. Appellant did not do so.
Correction of the Abstract of Judgment
In the Wende brief, appellate counsel requests correction of an error in the abstract
of judgment for the indeterminate term filed on April 28, 2025, after the resentencing
hearing.
At trial, the jury found true the section 12022.5, subdivision (a) enhancement for
personal use of a firearm attached to count 1, first degree murder with the special
circumstance. At the resentencing hearing, the trial court imposed five years for the same
section 12022.5, subdivision (a) firearm enhancement, and this is correctly stated in the
abstract of judgment for the determinate term (form CR-290).
The abstract of judgment for the indeterminate term, form CR-292, correctly
shows appellant was sentenced to LWOP for count 1 first degree murder with the special
5.
circumstance. In section 2 of form CR-292, it incorrectly shows the enhancement was
imposed pursuant to section “12022.(a)” and omits the “.5” from the applicable statute.
We order correction of the abstract of judgment.
After independent review of the record, we find no other reasonably arguable
factual or legal issues exist.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment for the
indeterminate term, form CR-292, filed on April 28, 2025, for the resentencing
proceedings held on April 23, 2025, to show the enhancement listed in section 2 was
imposed pursuant to section 12022.5, subdivision (a) and not section “12022.(a).”
The clerk of the superior court shall forward a certified copy of the amended
abstract of judgment to the appropriate entities.
As corrected, the judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
6.