People v. Alejandre CA4/3

Filed 3/5/25 P. v. Alejandre 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063423, G063424

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16CF0820, 16CF0610) IRAN ALEJANDRE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from postjudgment orders of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. Joanna Rehm, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Robin Urbanski and Laura G. Baggett, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * * Except for certain sex offenses, the Legislature has generally determined that one-year prison priors “imposed prior to January 1, 2020” are “legally invalid.” (Pen. Code, 1 § 1172.75, subd. (a).) The Legislature has further provided that if a defendant’s sentence “includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (Id., subd. (c).) The sole issue in these consolidated appeals is whether section 1172.75 applies when a trial court strikes a prison prior for purposes of sentencing. Our Supreme Court is considering this issue and will have the last word. In the meantime, we agree with the only published opinion which addresses this question and hold “that section 1172.75 should be interpreted to apply whenever a prison prior was imposed, whether punishment was executed, stayed, or struck.” (People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193 (Espino), review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987.) Here, defendant Iran Alejandre petitioned for relief under section 1172.75. The trial court denied his petitions because his prison prior was struck for purposes of sentencing. Following Espino’s lead, we reverse the court’s order and remand with directions to resentence Alejandre.