People v. Stanley CA4/3

Filed 4/15/25 P. v. Stanley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063765

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17NF2932)

WILLIAM DALE STANLEY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Affirmed and remanded with directions. Jared G. Coleman, 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, Robin Urbanski and Brendon Marshall, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant William Dale Stanley appeals an order denying his 1 petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75. Pursuant to that section, resentencing generally is required when the defendant is serving a sentence for a judgment that includes a prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b) (section 667.5(b)). Although Stanley’s original judgment included such an enhancement, the enhancement was stricken on appeal. (People v. Stanley (Jan. 30, 2020, G056255) [nonpub. opn.] (Stanley I).) Therefore, Stanley is ineligible for resentencing, and we affirm the order denying his petition. However, we remand to permit the trial court to modify its minute order to properly reflect the judgment against Stanley. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2018, Stanley was convicted of two felony offenses and found to have suffered multiple prior convictions. He was also found to have served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5(b), which was based on his commission of felony assault in an earlier case. The trial court sentenced Stanley to prison for 14 years and 4 months. In so doing, the court imposed a one-year enhancement for the prior prison term, but it then stayed execution of that punishment pursuant to section 654. On appeal, we struck the prior prison term enhancement and ordered the trial court to amend the judgment accordingly. (Stanley I, supra, G056255.) On remand, the trial court complied with our order by issuing a new abstract of judgment that omits reference to the prior prison enhancement, which is the proper procedure when, as here, the enhancement has been fully stricken.