People v. Fuller CA2/1

Filed 5/27/25 P. v. Fuller CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B337248

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA026050) v.

TYRONE FULLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Debbie Yen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Shezad H. Thakor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ________________________

Defendant Tyrone Fuller appeals the trial court’s denial of his request for a resentencing hearing pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1172.75. Section 1172.75 declares certain sentence enhancements previously imposed pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b) (section 667.5(b)) to be invalid and directs courts to resentence any defendant with such enhancements. Interpreting the term “imposed” to mean only imposed and executed, the trial court declined to grant Fuller any relief because the section 667.5(b) enhancements imposed in his case were stayed. Fuller argues this was error. The Courts of Appeal are currently divided on this issue and the Supreme Court has granted review. (See, e.g., People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144, 1154-1155 [holding § 1172.75 applicable to stayed sentence enhancements]; People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188 [same], review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987; People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665, 672 [same], review granted Aug. 14, 2024, S285853; People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276 [same], review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547; People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 309 [same], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189; People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 [holding § 1172.75 applies only to executed sentence enhancements], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169.) While we await guidance from our high court, we agree with the weight of current authority holding that a defendant whose sentence includes a section 667.5(b) enhancement that has been imposed