Tag Archives: Prior convictions

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000173

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals from an order finding her ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. The trial court found her ineligible because the prior prison term enhancement had been stayed and not executed. We reverse with instructions that the trial court conduct further proceedings under that section.

First Holding:

The defendant is not requesting resentencing under the Three Strikes Reform Act. She was not even eligible for the Three Strikes Reform Act process because her current felony is a serious felony, to which the Reform Act is inapplicable. She is requesting the trial court exercise its discretion under in the furtherance of justice under Romero to strike one of her prior strike offenses. Because she is not eligible for (and is not seeking relief under) the Three Strikes Reform Act, section 1172.75 does not unconstitutionally conflict with it.

Authority:

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 347, 363-364

People v. Superior Court (Romero) 13 Cal.4th 497

Second Holding:

A defendant is entitled to the provisions of section 1172.75 even when execution was stayed for the now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

Third Holding:

[Gary note: This opinion was filed before Espino was decided. It is not applicable here because the prior conviction was stayed. But I think it is important to know the current complete state of the law. Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken (why do I think of a secret agent when I write that?), which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)

Fourth Holding:

In 2020, the Legislature enacted section 1172.75, which limits the circumstances when section 667.5, subdivision (b) sentencing enhancements may be imposed. Someone serving a sentence that includes an enhancement that section 1172.75 now renders invalid is eligible for possible resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1282

Fifth Holding:

Though inapplicable here because the defendant is ineligible for relief under the Three Strikes Reform Act, the Reform Act’s revised penalty provisions may be applied at a section 1172.25 resentencing if section 1170.126’s substantive requirements are satisfied.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 850, 861

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000163

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Here, the trial court erroneously declined to resentence the defendant under section 1172.75. Because the court never exercised its discretion under the statute, we remand for it to do so in accordance with the mandatory procedures for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the underlying judgment includes a now-invalid prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

Second Holding:

[Gary note: NOT discussed in this opinion, but important to know anyway.  Rhodius dealt solely with prior convictions whose punishment was stayed, deferring the question whether section 1172.75 applies to prior convictions that were stricken. On July 2, 2026, the Supreme Court answered that question in People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987). It held that section 1172.75 applies to those prior convictions that were stricken at time of sentencing. This is not discussed in the summary above because the trial court had relied the prior conviction having been stayed, not stricken (why do I think of a secret agent when I write that?), which was directly addressed by Rhodius.]

Authority:

People v. Espino (2026) ___ Cal.5th ___ (S286987)

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000162

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Section 1172.75 does not apply to the defendant’s death sentence. However, because the defendant was also sentenced to an indeterminate term in addition to the death sentence, and because section 1172.75 applies by its terms to this aspect of his sentence, we conclude he is entitled to resentencing of the indeterminate term only.

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required the court to impose a one-year enhancement for each prior prison term the defendant had served, unless the defendant had remained free of custody for the preceding five years. Effective January 1, 2020, SB 136 amended section 667.5 to limit the enhancement to prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses. After SB 136 took effect, courts applied the legislation retroactively to cases that were not yet final on January 1, 2020.

Authority:

PEN 667.5(b)

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 854

People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 309

People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664, 668

Second Holding:

After the superior court verifies a judgment includes an invalid enhancement, the court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75(c)

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, 243, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

Third Holding:

By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Fourth Holding:

Insofar as the defendant’s claims require us to interpret section 1172.75, they present questions of statutory interpretation and construction subject to de novo review. If the statutory language permits more than one reasonable interpretation, courts may consider other aids, such as the statute’s purpose, legislative history, and public policy.

Authority:

People v. Harring (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 483, 495

People v. Brown (2023) 14 Cal.5th 530, 536

Fifth Holding:

[Gary Note: the opinion contains footnotes on cases that have dealt with and disagreed on the impact of section 1172.75 on those serving death sentences. The issue is complex and is pending in the California Supreme Court. The cases are listed below. I have chosen not to include the discussion or debate on that point. In this instance, the appellate concluded that section 1172.75 does not affect the death sentence but a death sentence does not render a defendant ineligible for resentencing on the indeterminate portion of the sentence.]

Authority:

People v. Dixon (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 236, review granted Oct. 22, 2025, S292223

People v. Millsap (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 368

People v. Cain (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 917, review granted Feb. 18, 2026, S294810

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case: 000157

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In light of the California Supreme Court’s recent decision in Fletcher, we vacate the trial court’s findings that defendant’s 2016 conviction for violating section 186.22(a) constituted a prior serious felony conviction for purposes of Three Strikes sentencing and imposing a prior serious felony conviction enhancement. Defendant’s sentence is vacated and this matter is remanded for further proceedings.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, to narrow the definition of criminal street gang in order to focus on true gang-related crimes, having determined that in practice the original definition of a criminal street gang was not narrowly focused on punishing true gang-related crimes. The Legislature in AB 333 redefined the term criminal street gang so as to truly target the population of criminals for which an enhanced punishment is warranted. As noted, AB 333 made significant changes to the elements of gang offenses and enhancements as defined in section 186.22.

Authority:

AB 333

PC 186.22

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576

People v. Rojas (2023) 15 Cal.5th 561

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169

Second Holding:

Defendant was convicted of making criminal threats in this case more than two years after the amendment of section 186.22, but for purposes of sentencing under the Three Strikes law and imposition of a prior serious felony conviction enhancement, the trial court found true that in 2016, defendant was convicted of active participation in a criminal street gang, in violation of section 186.22(a), which is a serious felony. Courts of Appeal were split on whether prosecutors were required to prove prior gang convictions under section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 or whether it was sufficient to show a conviction under the statute in effect at the time of the prior conviction.

Based on this split of authority, defendant claimed entitlement to relief from the court’s findings related to his 2016 gang conviction because the conviction must meet the elements of section 186.22(a), as amended by AB 333. The California Supreme Court resolved the split of authority in defendant’s favor and held that where a defendant has suffered a conviction under the prior version of section 186.22, AB 333 applies to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 583

Third Holding:

On remand, the People may elect to retry the prior conviction allegations under section 186.22(a) as amended by AB 333.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576, 608

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000150

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not obtaining the defendant’s personal waiver of his right to a jury trial on the aggravating circumstance allegations and the prior strike allegation. The People concede, and we agree. The error was prejudicial only as to the aggravating circumstances, not as to the prior strike. The record does not reflect that the defendant had ever waived jury trial on either the prior strike or aggravating factors.

First Holding:

There is a constitutional right to a jury trial on all aggravating facts, other than a prior conviction, relied upon to justify an upper term sentence. A waiver of this right must be personally expressed by the defendant in open court. The waiver must be explicit and will not be implied from a defendant’s conduct. Therefore, a defendant’s failure to object also would not preclude his asserting on appeal that he was denied his constitutional right to a jury trial.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 16

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

People v. Sivongxxay (2017) 3 Cal.5th 151, 166

Second Holding:

Failure to submit a sentencing factor to the jury, like failure to submit an element to the jury, is not structural error. When a defendant is deprived of a jury trial on aggravating facts used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence, the reviewing court must apply the Chapman standard of review. Under that standard, reversal and remand are required unless the reviewing court concludes beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury, applying that same standard, would have found true all of the aggravating facts upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified. Lack of a jury trial is not harmless under Chapman if the record contains evidence that could rationally lead to a contrary finding with respect to the aggravating fact at issue.

We accept the People’s concession that a rational jury could have reached a different conclusion with respect to the defendant’s prior performance on probation. The probation report noted that he had satisfactorily completed two prior grants of probation, although he failed on two other grants. The report listed his past successes on probation as a mitigating factor and his failures as an aggravating factor. This mixed view of performance on probation is what leads us to conclude that a rational jury could have disagreed with the trial court’s finding that his prior performance on probation was unsatisfactory. Therefore, the error here with respect to this allegation was prejudicial under Chapman

Authority:

Washington v. Recuenco (2006) 548 U.S. 212

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1087

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Third Holding:

The right to have the jury decide the truth of a prior conviction allegation stems from section 1025(b), not from the jury trial provision of article I, section 16 of the California Constitution or the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Absent an objection to the discharge of the jury or commencement of court trial, defendant is precluded from asserting on appeal a claim of ineffective waiver of the right to jury trial of prior prison term allegations. Here, by failing to object, the defendant forfeited any claim that the trial court improperly denied him his right to a jury trial by failing to take his express waiver of that right.

Authority:

PEN 1025

People v. Vera (1997) 15 Cal.4th 269, 277

People v. Grimes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 698, 737–738 [defendant forfeited a claim of involuntary waiver of jury trial on prior conviction allegations based on failure to object in the trial court]

Fourth Holding:

But even assuming an error with respect to his right to a jury trial on the prior strike allegation, the error is subject to the harmless error analysis under the Watson standard. The question under this standard is whether it is reasonably probable that a different result would have obtained had the prior strike allegation been tried before a jury. There is no such probability here.

To prove the prior strike conviction, the People produced as evidence his certified RAP sheet, a certified printout of the docket showing his conviction for that offense, the complaint associated with that prior, the waiver of rights and plea form, and the probation terms related to that conviction. For his part, the defendant never claimed he did not commit the offense, and he presented no evidence regarding this allegation. There is no reasonable probability the jury would have failed to find the allegation true under the evidence presented. Accordingly, we reject his claim that the trial court’s true finding on the prior strike allegation must be vacated.

Authority:

People v. Epps (2001) 25 Cal.4th 19, 29

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000126

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously used the defendant’s 2012 prior conviction to sentence him under the Three Strikes law without first determining whether that gang-enhanced felony could have been obtained after amendments enacted by AB 333 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 699).

First Holding:

Where a defendant has previously suffered a conviction under the prior version of Penal Code section 186.22, the changes made in AB 333 apply to the determination of whether the conviction qualifies as a prior serious felony conviction under section 1192.7(c)(28) for purposes of the Three Strikes law and prior serious felony enhancements.

Authority:

People v. Fletcher (2025) 18 Cal.5th 576

Second Holding:

By treating the defendant’s 2012 conviction as a prior strike conviction, the trial court imposed a sentence that is unauthorized by law under Fletcher. The defendant’s argument is therefore not forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Mancebo (2002) 27 Cal.4th 735, 749, fn. 7 [forfeiture principles do not apply to legal error resulting in an unauthorized sentence]

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 751 [The unauthorized sentence rule is an exception to the forfeiture doctrine. It permits a challenge to an unauthorized sentence on appeal even if the defendant failed to object below.]

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000119

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because punishments on his prison priors were stricken, the trial court ruled that the defendant was ineligible for relief under section 1172.75. We reverse and remand for resentencing.

Holding:

A pre-Rhodius case on point convincingly concluded that section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing. We agree with the Espino majority that there is no sound reason to differentiate between section 667.5 enhancements that have been stayed and those that have been stricken for purposes of sentencing. In each of these cases, the judgment still contains a now-invalid enhancement for a prior prison term.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

Amelioration, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case: 000116

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant petitioned for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. The question before us is whether section 1172.75 entitles the defendant to a resentencing hearing even though the prior prison term enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. We agree with defendant that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were stricken at sentencing, not just those that are imposed but stayed at sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 [Gary note: The case on review in the Supreme Court was argued and deemed submitted on May 6, 2026. The opinion will likely be rendered within 90 days of that date, or by August 4, 2026]

People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Sentencing

Case: 000092

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

 

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000088

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court made several errors in resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.5. It failed to strike the now-invalid priors, if failed to consider the impact of AB 333 on gang aspects; it imposed of repealed $10 admin fee. On remand the court must also recalculate credits and correct the abstract of judgment. [GARY NOTE: The opinion also provided extensive discussion of the application of section 1385, regarding dismissals in the furtherance or interest of justice, touching on abuse of discretion, etc., that were resolved against the defendant on appeal. I have provided a few principles and authorities on those points for educational reasons, even though they did not support relief for the defendant in this instance.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 declares legally invalid all one-year prior prison term enhancements except those for sexually violent offenses described in WI Code section 6600(b). Because the defendant’s two priors are not sexually violent offenses, they were legally invalid and should have been stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) modified the gang enhancement by adding new requirements that did not previously exist. Because AB 333 retroactively applies to people, like defendant, who have been granted a resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not assessing whether the jury’s findings in this case otherwise addressed the new requirements or whether the jury’s failure to do so was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395-396

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed a $10 administrative screening fee ostensibly under section 1463.07 in November 2018. This is unenforceable because our Legislature in 2021 repealed that section and nullified prior fees imposed under that section.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fourth Holding:

It was not necessary for the trial court to respond to all of the defendant’s contentions at the sentencing hearing. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.409 [sentencing factors will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise]

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

Fifth Holding:

We review the exercise of sentencing discretion for an abuse of discretion but recognize that a trial court’s reliance on an incorrect legal standard constitutes such an abuse. Application of the wrong test in determination of whether a defendant poses a danger to public safety is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

Sixth Holding:

Despite the use of the phrase “shall be dismissed,” section 1385’s provisions that require a court to give great weight in favor of dismissal do not apply where a trial court finds that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438, 444-446

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 335-337

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1284-1290

People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238-241

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 15-21

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000082

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court prejudicially erred in imposing the upper term based on aggravating circumstances not proven in accordance with Penal Code section 1170(b). We will vacate defendant’s sentence and remand the matter to the trial court for further litigation of the aggravating circumstances and resentencing.

First Holding:

With the exception of prior conviction allegations, under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury and established beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 747

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

Second Holding:

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Third Holding:

The United States Supreme Court rejected the argument that the prior conviction exception to the Sixth Amendment “permits a judge to find perhaps any fact related to a defendant’s past offenses. A judge may do no more, consistent with the Sixth Amendment, than determine what crime, with what elements, the defendant was convicted of.

Authority:

Erlinger v. United States (2024) 602 U.S. 821, 837-838

Fourth Holding:

The aggravating circumstances were not proven in accordance with section 1170(b)(2) and the prior conviction exception would not apply to them.e

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1083-1084 [We understand Erlinger to require that any fact, beyond the bare fact of a prior conviction, that exposes a defendant to harsher punishment, must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt]

Fifth Holding:

A trial court’s reliance on aggravating circumstances not found in accordance with section 1170(b) is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Sixth Holding:

When assessing prejudice under Chapman, the proper inquiry is whether any rational fact finder could have come to the opposite conclusion. If a rational juror could have reached the opposite conclusion, the error is not harmless under Chapman. The People bear the burden of establishing that the federal constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 775-776 [To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court]

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1090 [deciding it could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a properly instructed jury would have found the defendant’s criminal convictions were of increasing seriousness]

People v. Avalos (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 926, 953

Amelioration, Sentencing

Case 000080

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Rhodius resolved a split of authority among the Courts of Appeal regarding resentencing eligibility when a defendant’s sentence for a prior prison enhancement (see former sec. 667.5(b)) was stayed and never executed. Rhodius held that defendants whose enhanced prison prior term or terms were stayed at sentencing are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. Pursuant to Rhodius, we therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying defendant a resentencing hearing, and remand for the court to hold that hearing.

Holding:

A defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 (pertaining to recent legislation that eliminated enhancement for certain prior convictions that resulted in prison terms) where the enhancement for the prior conviction had been imposed but stayed or stricken.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050