Error and/or relief
The defendant was entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75, even though the now-invalid prior prison enhancement was stayed at the original sentencing.
First Holding:
When a prior conviction pursuant to section 667.5(b) is stricken pursuant to the procedures in section 1172.75, a defendant is entitled to full resentencing under section 1172.75(d).
Authority:
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050
Second Holding:
The failure of the People to raise the issue in the trial court forfeits the issue on appeal. The reason for the forfeitur] rule is that it is both unfair and inefficient to permit a claim of error on appeal that, if timely brought to the attention of the trial court, could have been easily corrected or avoided. The forfeiture rule ensures that the opposing party is given an opportunity to address the objection, and it prevents a party from engaging in gamesmanship by choosing not to object, awaiting the outcome, and then claiming error.
Authority:
People v. Sperling (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 1094, 1101
People v. Partida (2005) 37 Cal.4th 428, 433-434
Third Holding:
If the appellate court’s order upon remand requires correction as to one part of a sentence but the remand order limits the scope of resentencing, the trial court must adhere to the limits set forth in the remand order. At the hearing upon remand, the trial court addressed only the section 667(a), prior convictions as directed by disposition in the Opinion. While the trial court could have addressed the section 667.5(b) priors and the stayed sentences at that time of remand based on a change of the law, it did not do so and was never asked to consider resentencing on the prior prison terms.
Authority:
People v. Walker (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 198, 205
People v. Hargis (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 199, 205-207 [where a change in the law becomes effective after the appellate court’s opinion but before the hearing on the limited remand, the trial court could consider the new law despite the limited remand]