People v. Padilla CA4/3

California Court of Appeal Jan 17, 2025 No. G063560Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that a defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 even if the prior prison term enhancement was imposed and stayed rather than imposed and executed.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1172.75 apply to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but stayed?
Does the unauthorized nature of a stayed enhancement preclude a defendant from seeking relief under section 1172.75?

Disposition. reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Since section 1172.75’s enactment, a split of authority has developed as to whether a prior prison enhancement that was imposed but stayed entitles a defendant to resentencing. The majority of courts that have analyzed the issue have held that it does.”

“Section 1172.75, on its face, applies to those defendants currently in custody and serving a sentence which “includes” a section 667.5 subdivision (b) enhancement. There is no requirement that the enhancement must have resulted in a lengthier sentence.”

“If Padilla’s original sentence included prison time for a now invalid enhancement, he is not only entitled to have that enhancement stricken, he is entitled to all relief afforded under section 1172.75”

Filed 1/17/25 P. v. Padilla CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063560

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF0291)

AGUSTIN PADILLA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. 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, Melissa

A. Mandel and Joseph C. Anagnos, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * In 2015, appellant Agustin Padilla pleaded guilty to carjacking (count 1; Pen. Code,1 § 215, subd. (a)), kidnapping (counts 2 and 3; § 207, subd. (a)), and second degree robbery (counts 4 and 5; §§ 211/212.5, subd. (c)). He also admitted a prior prison enhancement. (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Padilla to 14 years and four months in prison. The court imposed and stayed a one-year sentence for the prison prior. In 2020, the Legislature amended section 667.5, subdivision (b), to limit the imposition of one-year prior prison term enhancements to certain sexually violent offenses. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590; Sen. Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.).) The Legislature also retroactively invalidated prior prison enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b), unless the term related to certain violent sex offenses. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Section 1172.75 provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5 . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) The statute requires the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to “identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement in subdivision (a) and [to] provide the name of each person, along with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).)

People v. Padilla CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

AGUSTIN PADILLA, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

GOETHALS, J.

O’LEARY, P. J.

DELANEY, J.

AI Brief