People v. Hayes CA4/1

Filed 9/26/24 P. v. Hayes CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D083396

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD207065) FAIRLOND LEE HAYES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Reversed. Daniel J. Kessler, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Evan Stele, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Penal Code1 section 1172.75 provides that certain one-year sentence enhancements that were imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to former section 667.5, subdivision (b) are legally invalid. The statute provides a mechanism for resentencing individuals who are serving judgments that include one or more of those enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subds. (a)–(c).) In this case, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified Fairlond Lee Hayes as an inmate potentially eligible for relief under section 1172.75. The trial court found that the two prison prior enhancements had been stayed at the timing of sentencing, and concluded resentencing was unnecessary. On appeal, the parties dispute whether section 1172.75 applies in cases in which the inmate’s abstract of judgment includes one or more section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements that were previously imposed but stayed. We conclude that the statute does apply in this situation, and that therefore resentencing is required. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying Hayes’s request for resentencing. I. Factual and Procedural Background The trial court sentenced appellant on April 19, 2010, to serve thirty- five years to life in state prison for evading a peace officer and robbery. During sentencing, the trial court imposed but stayed two one-year terms for prison prior enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b)(2). In 2020, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) to amend section 667.5, subdivision (b). The statute made prison prior enhancements applicable only to persons whose prior prison terms resulted from convictions for sexually violent offenses. Prison prior enhancements were eliminated for defendants whose prior prison terms were for non-