Error and/or relief
The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court did not impose any prior-prison-term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The clerk of the superior court is directed to forward copies of the corrected abstract of judgment to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
First Holding:
As the judge did not orally impose any prior-prison-term enhancements, section 1172.5 does not come into play, despite a reference to the priors in the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Second Holding:
Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, sec. 1) amended section 667.5 to limit the enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses (sec. 667.5(b)).
Authority:
PEN 667.5(b)
People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 854
Third Holding:
Effective January 1, 2022, SB 483 made the change retroactive to all persons currently serving a term of incarceration in jail or prison for these repealed sentence enhancements.
Authority:
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062
Fourth Holding:
Penal Code 1172.75 affords relief when the sentence enhancement was imposed but the punishment on the enhancement was stricken.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050
Fifth Holding:
An appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning, and will affirm on any correct ground.
Authority:
People v. Battle (2021) 11 Cal.5th 749, 800
Sixth Holding:
An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
Seventh Holding:
The abstract may be corrected at any time when it does not reflect the oral pronouncements.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185