People v. Waldrop CA4/1

Filed 10/31/24 P. v. Waldrop CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D083337

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD103413) RAY WALDROP,

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, Melissa Mandel, and Stephanie H. Chow, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION Ray Waldrop appeals the denial of his motion for resentencing under

Penal Code,1 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 1994, a jury convicted Waldrop of one count of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and one count of attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a)). The jury found true an allegation that Waldrop was armed with a firearm during the commission of each offense (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Waldrop to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life for murder plus one year for the firearm enhancement along with a consecutive determinate term of 10 years for attempted murder plus one year for the firearm enhancement. The trial court found true an allegation that Waldrop had a prison prior (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The court imposed, but stayed the prison prior enhancement. 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