People v. McDonald CA4/3

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. McDonald 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063798

v. (Super. Ct. No. 15CF1181)

NORA LEE MCDONALD, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Andre Manssourian, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Lindsey M. Ball, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal and James M. Toohey, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Nora Lee McDonald appeals from the court’s denial of her petition to recall her sentence and resentence her pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1172.75. Defendant contends she is eligible for resentencing, but the Attorney General argues defendant is not entitled to resentencing because the court struck her prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pending review of the issue by our Supreme Court, we agree with defendant and reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS In 2016, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)). Defendant also admitted she had three prior strikes (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), two serious felony priors (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and several prison priors (§ former 667.5, subd. (b)).2 The court sentenced defendant to 12 years in state prison. Relevant here, the court also struck the prison priors (former § 667.5, subd. (b)) “for purpose[s] of sentencing only.” In 2023, defendant filed a petition for the court to recall and resentence her 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 the time of sentencing.” The court’s order also stated, “If Defendant appeals