Error and/or relief
The court erroneously believed that the defendant was categorically ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because he was serving an indeterminate sentence under the “Three Strikes” law. Because the record does not clearly indicate that the court would have made the same decision had it been aware of the full scope of its resentencing power and discretion, we reverse and remand the matter with directions for the court to conduct a full resentencing under section 1172.75.
First Holding:
Once the trial court confirms that the underlying judgment includes an invalid prior prison term enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. A defendant who is eligible for relief under section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing.
Authority:
PEN 667.5
PEN 1172.75
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1067, fn. 3
Second Holding:
Section 1172.75(d) establishes several parameters for resentencing.
First, the resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.
Second, the court must apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council and apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.
Third, the court may consider postconviction factors that speak to whether continued incarceration remains in the interest of justice, such as the defendant’s physical condition and records of discipline and rehabilitation while incarcerated.
Finally, unless the court originally imposed the upper term, the court may not impose a sentence exceeding the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term, and those facts have been stipulated to by the defendant, or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
Third Holding:
A trial court has the authority to exercise its discretion under section 1385(a) and Romero to strike any or all of a defendant’s strike priors after recalling his sentence and for the purposes of resentencing him under section 1172.75. As the court in Rogers explained, because a trial court’s power under section 1385(a) to dismiss or strike a strike prior is independent of either the Three Strikes law or the subsequent Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, any exercise of that power at a resentencing proceeding under section 1172.75 does not offend either.
Authority:
People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497
People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 362, 364
Fourth Holding:
Where, as here, a trial court sentences a defendant without being aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, remand is required to allow the court to fully exercise that discretion unless the record clearly indicates that the court would have reached the same decision had it been aware of the scope of its discretion.
Authority:
People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391