People v. Faircloth CA4/1

Filed 9/26/24 P. v. Faircloth CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083519

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD262107) BILLY RAY FAIRCLOTH,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Lisa R. Rodriguez, Judge. Reversed and remanded with instructions. Reed Webb, 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, Christopher P. Beesley, and Britton B. Lacy, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Billy Ray Faircloth appeals the denial of his motion for resentencing

under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Because the trial court’s ruling was based on an erroneous interpretation of section 1172.75, we reverse and remand for full resentencing. In 2015, a jury convicted Faircloth of animal cruelty (§ 597, subd. (a)), and a separate jury convicted him of second degree robbery (§ 211). The trial court found true that Faircloth had two prison priors (§§ 667.5, subd. (b) & 668), three serious felony priors (§§ 667, subd. (a)(1) & 668), and three strike priors (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). At sentencing, the court imposed a prison term totaling 26 years and four months, and the court stayed execution of two terms for prison priors under section 667.5, subdivision (b). Effective January 1, 2022, section 1172.75 was added to the Penal Code by virtue of the passage of Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.) With one exception not applicable here, section 1172.75 provides that prison prior enhancements “imposed prior to January 1, 2020” pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) are “legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) It directs the Department of Corrections (CDCR) to identify those persons in custody “currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a) . . . to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.” (Id., subd. (b).) Upon receiving this information, “[i]f the court determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (Id., subd. (c).) “Resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than