People v. Perez CA4/3

Filed 3/6/25 P. v. Perez CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063781

v. (Super. Ct. No. 00CF1315)

RAYMOND ANTHONY PEREZ, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. John L. Staley, 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, Alana Butler and Daniel Rogers, 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,” 1 are “legally invalid.” (Pen. Code, § 1172.75, subd. (a), italics added.) 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.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) The operative issue in this appeal turns on whether section 1172.75 applies to a defendant when a trial court imposes a prison prior, but then stays (or strikes) the punishment for the enhancement. Appellate courts have split on the question, and the Supreme Court has granted review; therefore, we need not engage in a lengthy analysis or prediction as to how the issue will be resolved. (See People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169.) But in the meantime, we agree with the majority view in this state and hold “that section 1172.75 should be interpreted to apply whenever a prison prior was imposed, whether punishment was executed, stayed, or struck.” (See, e.g., People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, italics added (Espino), review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987.) Here, defendant Raymond Anthony Perez petitioned for relief under section 1172.75. The court denied his petition because at the time of sentencing the court imposed two prison priors, but stayed the punishment. Consistent with the majority view, we reverse the trial court’s order and remand with directions to recall defendant’s sentence, and then to conduct a resentencing hearing.