People v. Vo CA4/3

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Vo 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063751

v. (Super. Ct. No. 08CF0715)

VINH THANH VO, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Gerald J. Miller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Christopher P. Beesley and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Vinh Thanh Vo appeals from the court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1172.75. Defendant contends he is eligible for resentencing, but the Attorney General argues defendant is not entitled to resentencing because his prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) were either stricken or stayed. Pending review of the issue by our Supreme Court, we agree with defendant and reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS In 2008, a jury convicted defendant of one count of making criminal threats (§ 422). The jury also found true multiple enhancements, including that defendant had suffered prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 35 years to life. Relevant here, the court also struck one of the former section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison priors “for purpose[s] of sentencing only” and stayed punishment for the second. Defendant appealed, and another panel of this court affirmed the judgment. (People v. Vo (July 19, 2010, G041746) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2023, defendant filed a petition for the court to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1172.75. The court noted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified defendant as an individual potentially eligible for relief but declined to recall defendant’s sentence “because all related enhancements were either stayed or stricken at