People v. Arreguin CA4/3

Filed 4/15/25 P. v. Arreguin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063800

v. (Super. Ct. No. 06CF3589)

RALPH ARREGUIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Reversed and remanded. 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 Donald W. Ostertag, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Ralph Arreguin appeals an order denying his petition 1 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 Arreguin’s judgment includes three such enhancements, the trial court determined he was ineligible for resentencing because their punishment was stayed at the time of sentencing. Arreguin contends that ruling was erroneous, and we agree. In coming to this conclusion, we recognize there is currently a split of authority in the courts of appeal regarding whether section 1172.75 applies when a prison prior was imposed but stayed, and the California Supreme Court is poised to decide this issue. Pending the Supreme Court’s decision, we interpret section 1172.75 as encompassing stayed enhancements. We therefore reverse the trial court’s order denying Arreguin’s petition and remand the matter for resentencing. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In 2007, Arreguin was convicted of multiple felony offenses and found to have suffered several prior convictions. He also admitted having served three prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5(b), which stemmed from various low level felonies he committed in earlier cases. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of 35 years to life in prison. In so doing, the court imposed and stayed punishment on the prior prison term enhancements. They are listed in the abstract of judgment with an “S” next to them, indicating they were charged and found true, but the time imposed for them was stayed.