People v. Brady CA4/3

Filed 4/24/25 P. v. Brady 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063549

v. (Super. Ct. No. 95HF1058)

PATRICK DAMIAN BRADY, 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. Request for judicial notice denied. Christopher Stansell, 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, A. Natasha Cortina and Liz Olukoya, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Patrick Damian Brady appeals from the denial of his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 (all undesignated statutory references are to this code). Brady contends the trial court erred in concluding he was not entitled to relief because his enhancement for a prior prison term under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) (prison prior) was stricken for purposes of sentencing. We agree with Brady and conclude he is entitled to be resentenced under section 1172.75. Thus, we reverse and remand for resentencing. PROCEDURAL HISTORY In 1995, Brady pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a handgun and relevant here, he admitted, in addition to having suffered a prior felony “strike” conviction, to having a prison prior. Relevant here, the trial court found the prison prior to be true which was “stricken for purpose of sentencing only.” In November 2023, Brady filed a petition for recall and resentencing under section 1172.75, which the trial court denied, finding Brady was “ineligible for relief because all related enhancements were either stayed or stricken at time of sentencing.” DISCUSSION “Prison priors are governed by section 667.5. When first enacted in 1976, this section required trial courts to impose a one-year enhancement for any nonviolent felony for which a prison sentence was imposed, unless the defendant remained free of custody for at least five years after completing that sentence.” (People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 194, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 (Espino).) Now, section 1172.75 deems certain one-year sentence enhancements for prison priors, imposed before January 1, 2020, to be invalid and sets forth a mechanism for resentencing individuals