California Court of Appeal Jan 7, 2025 No. E083070Unpublished
Filed 1/7/25 P. v. Goodson CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083070
v. (Super.Ct.No. CR61218)
KURT LEE GOODSON, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed with directions.
Richard L. Fitzer, 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 Paige B. Hazard,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
In 1996, defendant Kurt Lee Goodson was sentenced to 70 years to life in prison
for second degree murder with various enhancements. In a nonpublished opinion (People
v. Goodson (Apr. 21, 1998, E019189), this court affirmed the conviction but remanded
for resentencing. At resentencing, the trial court imposed a 45-year-to-life sentence and
added some enhancements erroneously omitted in the original sentencing, including one
year for a prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code2 section 667.5, subdivision
(b). In the appeal from that resentencing (People v. Goodson (July 16, 1999, E023697)
[nonpub. opn.]), this court directed the sentencing court to strike the prior prison term
enhancement. The trial court then struck the one-year prior prison term enhancement.
The fourth amended abstract of judgment filed July 26, 1999, erroneously states that the
punishment for the one-year prison term was stricken and must be corrected.
At the hearing held pursuant to section 1172.75, the court determined that
defendant is not eligible for a full resentencing because the prior prison term
enhancement was previously stricken. The trial court relied on this court’s decision in
People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, review granted February 21, 2024, S283169
(Rhodius). Rhodius held that because the one-year prior prison term enhancements under
1 Consideration of the underlying facts of this case is not necessary to determine the issue on appeal. We therefore omit a statement of facts. 2 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
section 667.5, subdivision (b), had been stayed by the trial court, he was not entitled to a
full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. On appeal, defendant contends the
court erred in denying him a full resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75.
DISCUSSION
Section 1172.75, subdivision (a) states, “Any sentence enhancement that was
imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, . . . is
legally invalid.” Subdivision (b) of section 1172.75 directs the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and county correctional administrators to identify
“persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an
enhancement” under section 667.5, subdivision (b).3
Upon receipt of the list, the sentencing court must verify that “the current
judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a).” (§ 1172.75,
subd. (c).) If so, the sentencing court must recall the sentence and resentence the
defendant. (Ibid.)
3 Because there was no indication in the record on appeal that CDCR provided defendant’s name to the sentencing court as a person serving a term for a judgment that includes a section 667.5, subdivision (b), prior enhancement as required by section 1172.75, we requested additional briefing from the parties as to whether the appeal should be dismissed. (People v. Escobedo (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 440, 447-448; People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 380-381.) In response, defendant filed a request to augment the record with a supplemental list that CDCR provided to the sentencing court. Defendant’s name and case number were on that list. This court granted the motion to augment the record with the list on September 11, 2024. Therefore, the appeal does not need to be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
3
At the resentencing, a sentence less than the original sentence must be imposed
due to the elimination of the enhancement, unless the court finds a lesser sentence would
endanger public safety. The court must also apply any other changes in law that reduce
sentences or provide for judicial discretion. (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1)-(2).)
The appellate courts are divided on whether these provisions apply to prior prison
term enhancements that have been stayed or stricken, and the California Supreme Court
has granted review in most of these cases. In Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th 38, the
sentencing court imposed but stayed the punishment for two prior prison term
enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b). At the section 1172.75 hearing, the
trial court struck the two prison priors but denied a full resentencing hearing. (Rhodius,
at pp. 41-42.) On appeal in Rhodius, this court interpreted the word “imposed” in
subdivision (a) of section 1172.75 to mean a sentence enhancement that was “imposed
and executed.” (Rhodius, at pp. 44-45, 47-48.) We therefore held that section 1172.75
did not apply to prior prison term enhancements that had been stayed. (Rhodius, at
pp. 48-49.)
In interpreting section 1172.75, this court in Rhodius looked at the statute as a
whole and determined the requirement that resentencing under the statute should result in
a lesser sentence than the original one meant that the prior prison term must have been
imposed and executed. (Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 43-45.) We determined
the legislative history indicated an intent to end “double” punishment for prior
convictions and longer incarceration periods. (Id., at p. 46.) Because the enhancement
4
had been stayed and the sentence could not be lowered in a resentencing, this court held
in Rhodius that section 1172.75 did not apply to it. (Rhodius, at p. 45.)
Other courts, such as the Fourth Appellate District, Division One in People v.
In the present case, the prior prison term enhancement was stricken, not stayed. In
People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, review granted October 23, 2024,
S286987, the Sixth District Court of Appeal held that the term “imposed” as used in
section 1172.75 also included prior prison term enhancements for which punishment had
been stricken. Espino held that defendants with stricken punishment for prior prison term
enhancements are entitled to full resentencing, reasoning that the Legislature intended the
phrase “[a]ny sentence enhancement” in section 1172.75 to be applied broadly, whether
the punishment was executed, stayed or stricken. (Espino, supra, at pp. 196-197.)
5
Because the enhancement in this case was stricken, it was not imposed and
executed, and the section 1172.75 requirement for a resentencing hearing does not apply.
In fact, since the enhancement was previously stricken, there was nothing more the trial
court could do to eliminate punishment for the enhancement and impose a lesser
sentence. (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) We therefore hold the trial court correctly denied
relief pursuant to section 1172.75.
Defendant argues a prior enhancement for which punishment has been stricken
remains on the abstract of judgment which could lead to imposition of increased
punishment in future cases. (People v. Garner (2016) 244 Cal.App.4th 1113, 1118.)
Garner held that if a sentence is recalled, a trial court may reconsider all sentencing
choices, including a sentencing enhancement for which the punishment had previously
been stricken. The fact that the enhancement could be used in a potential recall of
resentence does not add to sentence imposed in this case. If an enhancement or its
punishment is stricken, the enhancement cannot be used to add punishment in that case.
(People v. Fuentes (2016) 1 Cal.5th 218, 225-226; People v. Flores (2021) 63
Cal.App.5th 368, 383.) Section 1172.75 does not address any collateral consequences of
a prior prison term enhancement. Moreover, in this case because the enhancement itself
was stricken; it will not appear on the abstract of judgment. If the enhancement itself is
vacated, it should not appear on the abstract of judgment and should not be subject to use
in the future. “If a judge strikes the enhancement, it’s as if the fact of the enhancement
6
never existed—it will not remain on the defendant’s criminal record nor will it affect
them in any potential future sentencing.” (Flores, supra, at p. 383.)
DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the fourth amended abstract of
judgment filed July 26, 1999, by omitting the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement
and to transmit a copy of the corrected abstract of judgment to the CDCR. In all other
respects, the order denying relief under section 1172.75 is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
MILLER J. MENETREZ J.
7
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant is not entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the prior prison term enhancement in question had previously been stricken.
Issues
Whether a defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the prior prison term enhancement was previously stricken.
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because the enhancement in this case was stricken, it was not imposed and executed, and the section 1172.75 requirement for a resentencing hearing does not apply.”
“We therefore hold the trial court correctly denied relief pursuant to section 1172.75.”