People v. Johns CA1/2

Filed 3/19/25 P. v. Johns CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169599 v. ANTHONY D. JOHNS, (Sonoma County Super. Ct. No. SCR7082081) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2018, Defendant and Appellant Anthony D. Johns was charged with and pled no contest to four felonies; admitted a prior strike, prior serious felony and prison prior; and was sentenced to nine years in prison. Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature amended the law that previously provided for imposition of one-year enhancements for prior prison terms, eliminating those enhancements for felonies other than sexually violent offenses. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590 § 1 [amending Pen. Code,1 § 667.5].) In 2021, the Legislature adopted a new statute, which became effective on January 1, 2022, declaring that one-year prison prior sentence enhancements imposed before 2020 are “legally invalid” (Stats. 2024, ch. 979 § 3; see § 1172.75, subd. (a) [former § 1171.1, subsequently renumbered without change]) and

All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise indicated.

1

created a procedure affording retroactive relief to persons identified by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) as inmates serving a term of imprisonment for a judgment that includes one or more such enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subds. (b)–(e).) Section 1172.75 provides that once CDCR “ ‘identifies those persons ‘currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a)’ to the sentencing court, ‘the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.’ ” (People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 399 (Monroe), quoting §1172.75, subds. (b), (c).) It further provides that on resentencing, the court “shall apply the sentencing rules of the Judicial Council” and “any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” and may consider postconviction factors, including the record of discipline and rehabilitation of the defendant, whether the effect of the defendant’s age and physical condition have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence and changes in circumstances that have reduced the defendant’s risk for future violence. (§ 1172.75, subds. (d)(2), (d)(3); see Monroe, supra, at pp. 399-400.) In 2023, the trial court appointed counsel for Johns, who sought recall of Johns’s no longer valid one-year prison prior enhancement and full resentencing under section 1172.75. The People argued that section 1172.75 “only applies to inmates who are ‘currently serving’ sentences for now-invalid 1-year priors.” Because the sentencing court had stayed the one-year enhancement for Johns’s prison prior, the People argued Johnson was not serving that sentence and therefore was ineligible for relief. The trial court agreed with the People and, while acknowledging the split of authority on the issue, denied Johns’s petition.