Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in determining that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 where the now invalid prior conviction enhancement had been stricken at the original sentencing.
First Holding:
Legislation effective at the beginning of 2020 (SB 136) prospectively abolished most prior prison enhancements that were previously imposed under section 667.5(b). Our Legislature made that abolition retroactive in 2022 through SB 483, which enacted section 1171.1, later renumbered as section 1172.75. The statute declares invalid most prior prison enhancements imposed before the enhancements were abolished, with just one exception (defendants convicted of sexually violent offenses).
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
Second Holding:
Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. And the retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.
Authority:
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068
Third Holding:
Upon resentencing, the court will be required to calculate all credits Hernandez has accrued since his initial sentencing and award them against his new sentence.
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37 [the trial court, having modified defendant’s sentence on remand, was obliged, in its new abstract of judgment, to credit him with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time.]