Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in not conducted a full resentencing under section 1172.75 after striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and in conducting the hearing in the absence of the defendant without his express consent.
First Holding:
A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.
Authority:
People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402 [by its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements]
Second Holding:
Absent a valid waiver under section 977, defendant is entitled to be present physically or by remote appearance at resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Velasco (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 663, 673-674
Third Holding:
Resentencing under section 1172.75 ordinarily must be initiated by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), by the CDCR notifying the trial courts—no later than December 31, 2023—of all incarcerated individuals who may be entitled to relief under the statute. Compare Burgess with Cota–two cases discussing different circumstances under which a defendant-initiated resentencing petition is improper, but the CDCR’s failure to notify trial court by deadline does not preclude full resentencing hearing. Here, it appears the trial court’s early, but incomplete action granting defendant some resentencing relief by striking his section 667.5(b) prison-prior terms in 2022 made it unlikely defendant would appear on the CDCR resentencing-eligibility lists submitted to the trial court in 2023. That defendant may have fallen through the cracks in this manner does not deprive him of full resentencing eligibility under section 1172.75. To the extent necessary for procedural regularity, we deem defendant’s appeal here a petition for habeas corpus to secure the resentencing hearing the People concede is necessary.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75(b) and (c)
People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379-382
People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1131
People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 71-72 [appeal may be treated as a habeas corpus petition in the interest of judicial economy]