People v. Lamb CA4/3

Filed 3/13/25 P. v. Lamb CA4/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063640

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15WF0905)

LANCE LAMB, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions. John F. Schuck, 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, Collette C. Cavalier and Ksenia Gracheva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Lance Lamb appeals from the denial of his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code sections 1172.7 and 1172.75.1 Lamb contends the trial court erred in concluding he was not entitled to relief because his prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) (section 667.5(b)) were stricken at the time of sentencing. We agree with Lamb and reverse and remand for resentencing. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 2017, pursuant to a plea agreement, Lamb pled guilty to numerous felony counts and admitted all enhancements. Relevant to this appeal, Lamb admitted enhancements under former section 667.5(b) and the court struck the punishment. In October 2023, counsel filed a petition for recall and resentencing on behalf of Lamb alleging that his name appeared on the Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) list provided by the state Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and that he was eligible pursuant to sections 1172.7 and 1172.75. It was alleged Lamb was “serving, a term in prison for a judgment that include[d] [ enhancements] imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to Penal Code § 667.5(b).” In December 2023, the court found Lamb was “ineligible for relief because all related enhancements were either stayed or stricken.” Lamb filed a timely notice of appeal.