People v. Lopez CA6

Filed 12/26/24 P. v. Lopez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H051271 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 200871)

v.

ROBERTO CAMPA LOPEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Roberto Campa Lopez moved for resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.75 because enhancements for prior prison sentences—or “prison priors”—were included in his sentence. (Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court denied Lopez’s motion because the punishment for those prison priors was stayed. Following this district’s opinion in People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 (Renteria), we reverse and remand for resentencing. I. BACKGROUND Because the facts underlying Lopez’s offenses are not relevant to this appeal, we omit them and focus on the proceedings in this matter. In 1997, the district attorney filed an information charging Lopez with a felony count for assault with a deadly weapon in violation of section 245, subdivision (a)(1) and a misdemeanor count for resisting arrest in violation of section 148, subdivision (a). The

information also alleged eight prior strike offenses, four prior serious felonies, and—most pertinently here—six prison priors. At trial, the jury found Lopez guilty on both counts, and the allegations of prior strike offenses, serious felony convictions, and prison priors were all found true. Because of the prior strikes, Lopez was sentenced under the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) to 25 years to life for the assault conviction. The trial court also imposed 20 years for the four prior serious felonies and a concurrent sentence of six months for the misdemeanor. Finally, the trial court included in the sentence six prison priors, but stayed punishment for them. In 2013, Lopez filed a petition for resentencing under the Three Strikes law and in 2021 a petition under section 1016.8, both of which were denied. In April 2022, based on the prison priors included in his sentence, Lopez moved for resentencing under Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Sen. Bill. 483), which is now codified in section 1172.75. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3 [enacting former § 1171.1]; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12 [moving former § 1171.1 to § 1172.75].) After counsel was appointed, Lopez again moved for resentencing under section 1172.75. The trial court denied the motions, reasoning that section 1172.75 only “applies to persons for whom a section 667.5(b) enhancement was imposed and executed.” Lopez filed a timely notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION Lopez argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for resentencing because section 1172.75 requires resentencing whenever a now-invalid prison prior was imposed, whether punishment for the prison prior was executed, stayed, or struck. We review this question of statutory interpretation de novo. (Renteria, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1281-1282.) In keeping with prior decisions from this district, and with the majority of decisions from other districts, we conclude that section 1172.75 applies and requires resentencing where, as here, a prison prior was imposed but stayed. 2