Error and/or relief
The Court of Appeal treated this appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus, and struck the enhancement for the now-invalid prison term enhancement.
Habeas was necessary because the defendant’s name did not appear on a list prepared and maintained by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), so the defendant was not eligible to apply for resentencing under section 1172.75.
The court granted the writ, directing that the prior prison term enhancement be stricken, and also ordered correction of an error contained in the abstract of judgment.
First Holding:
Section 1172.75, effective in 2022, provides that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant section 667.5(b), except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense as defined in section 6600(b) of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.
The statute also establishes a process for recalling sentences that include now-invalid prior prison term enhancements and resentencing affected defendants. It requires the Secretary of the CDCR and the county correctional administrator of each county to identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in section 1172.75(a) and to provide the name of each person, along with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.
Upon receiving this information, the court shall review the judgment and verify that the current judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in section 1172.75(a). If the judgment includes such an enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
Second Holding:
Any review and verification by the court in advance of resentencing is only triggered by receipt of the necessary information from the CDCR Secretary or a county correctional administrator, not by any individual defendant.
Section 1172.75 does not contemplate resentencing relief initiated by any individual defendant’s petition or motion.
While defendant’s petition is not sufficient to authorize the trial court to act pursuant to section 1172.75, jurisdiction can be found if the CDCR provided the court with a list identifying defendant while his petition was pending.
In this case, the CDCR never identified defendant to the trial court as someone eligibile for section 1172.75 resentencing, and the trial court did not have jurisdiction to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75. Therefore, the trial court’s resentencing and related abstract of judgment and minute order are void.
Authority:
People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 384
People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332 [trial court is statutorily authorized to act once trial court receives defendant’s identification information from CDCR]
People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447–448
People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268
People v. Chavez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 771, 780
Third Holding:
On appeal from a void judgment or order, we must reverse the trial court’s void acts because simply dismissing the appeal would leave intact the void judgment.
Authority:
People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 170
People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1477, fn. 5
Fourth Holding:
Where, as here, execution of sentence has commenced and the judgment is final, the trial court is generally deprived of jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant. To obtain resentencing on a final judgment, a defendant generally must file a petition for writ of habeas corpus (see ) or proceed by way of a special statutory procedure (e.g., §§ 1170.18, 1170.91, 1172.1, 1172.2, 1172.6, 1172.7, 1172.75).
Authority:
People v. Picklesimer (2010) 48 Cal.4th 330, 339
People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344
Dix v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 442, 455
People v. Hernandez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326
People v. Hernandez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 1111, 1118
Fifth Holding:
A trial court may recall and resentence a defendant on its own motion, within 120 days of the date of commitment or at any time if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of original sentencing are subsequently changed by new statutory authority or case law, provided the new sentence, if any, is no greater than the initial sentence.
A defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the court under this section. If a defendant requests consideration for relief under this section, the court is not required to respond.
Authority:
PEN 1172.1(a)(1)
Sixth Holding:
A defendant may, however, invite the court to exercise its discretion under section 1172.1.
However, appellate courts have uniformly held that a trial court’s summary decision not to take up a defendant’s invitation under section 1172.1 is not an appealable order and that any such appeal fails to confer jurisdiction to the Court of Appeal.
There is no indication in the record that the trial court intended to grant defendant’s invitation to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1172.1.
Authority:
People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 375
People v. Brinson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1047
People v. Roy (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 991, 1001
People v. Faustinos (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 687, 695–696
People v. Hodge (2024) 107 Cal.App.5th 985, 996
Seventh Holding:
The record does reflect that a prior prison term enhancement was imposed illegally (because it was imposed AFTER the statute was amended declaring such prior prison term enhancements to be invalid).
Both parties have requested that we treat defendant’s appeal as a petition for writ of habeas corpus with respect to the sentence he is still serving, and we exercise that discretion.
Accordingly, for the sake of judicial economy, we shall deem defendant’s appeal, in part, a petition for writ of habeas corpus and order that the abstract of judgment be modified to strike defendant’s former section 667.5 enhancement.
Authority:
People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 928, fn. 4
Eighth Holding:
The abstract of judgment erroneously reflects that the firearm enhancement is attached to count II instead of count I, which it was actually attached to. Having reviewed the record on appeal, we shall order the abstract of judgment corrected.
Authority:
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89