People v. Lopez CA2/1

Filed 9/3/24 P. v. Lopez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B329802

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA459259) v.

DANIEL LOPEZ et al.,

Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Shelly B. Torrealba, Judge. Reversed with directions. Lenore De Vita, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Daniel Lopez. Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant Jesus Arellano.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David E. Madeo, Deputy Attorneys General for Plaintiff and Respondent.

___________________________

Daniel Lopez and Jesus Arellano were convicted by plea of certain crimes in 2019. Their prison sentences included a one-year enhancement for prior prison terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).1 The prior prison terms were not for convictions of a sexually violent offense. The Legislature thereafter enacted section 1172.75, which declares that such enhancements are “legally invalid” and provides a recall and resentencing procedure for incarcerated persons whose sentences include the invalid enhancements. Lopez and Arellano petitioned the superior court to recall their sentences and to be resentenced under this statute. The court denied the petitions, and the defendants appealed. The Attorney General concedes that the defendants’ prior prison enhancements are invalid, but argues that this court should strike the one-year enhancements from the sentences and otherwise affirm the judgment. We disagree. Section 1172.75 mandates the recall of the defendants’ sentences and a full resentencing hearing, subject to the guidelines and requirements of the statute.