People v. Whitley CA4/3

Filed 5/7/25 P. v. Whitley 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063809

v. (Super. Ct. No. 13NF1347)

JAQUAN DONTA WHITLEY, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian. Reversed and remanded with directions. Heather E. Shallenberger, 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 Kathryn Kirschbaum, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jaquan Donta Whitley appeals from the denial of his petition for recall and resentencing pursuant to Penal Code1 sections 1172.7 and 1172.75. Whitley 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 Whitley and reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS In 2018, pursuant to a plea agreement, Whitley pled guilty to numerous felony counts and admitted a section 12022.53, subdivision (b) enhancement. Relevant to this appeal, Whitley also admitted three enhancements under former section 667.5(b), and the trial court struck the punishment for each for the purpose of sentencing only. In November 2023, counsel filed a petition for recall and resentencing on behalf of Whitley under Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (section 1172.75), and the trial court denied the petition. The court found Whitley was not eligible for relief because the enhancements had been stayed or stricken at the time of sentencing. Whitley filed a timely notice of appeal. DISCUSSION Effective January 1, 2022, section 1172.75 provides that certain one-year sentence enhancements for prior prison terms imposed under former section 667.5(b) are legally invalid and provides a mechanism for resentencing individuals serving judgments that include one or more of those