California Court of Appeal Oct 27, 2025 No. E083232AUnpublished
Filed 10/27/25 P. v. Fields CA4/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E083232
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1602427)
STEFFEN LUTHER FIELDS, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Laura Vavakin, 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, Arlene A. Sevidal and Jon S. Tangonan,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Steffen Luther Fields, Jr., appeals from the trial court’s
order finding him ineligible for recall of his sentence and resentencing under Penal Code
section 1172.75.1 The appeal returns to us on transfer from the Supreme Court to
reconsider the cause in light of People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 (Rhodius).
In March 2017 the court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in state prison,
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
consecutive to a determinate 15-year term. Relevant here, the court imposed but stayed
execution of one-year penalty enhancements for each of defendant’s two prison priors.
In December 2023 the trial court considered defendant’s eligibility for recall of his
sentence and resentencing under section 1172.75. The court found he was ineligible. On
appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s ruling. (People v. Fields (May 21, 2025,
E083232) [nonpub. opn.].) We subsequently vacated that decision following Rhodius,
and the People filed a supplemental brief conceding that defendant is entitled to
resentencing under section 1172.75.
DISCUSSION
Section 1172.75, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that
was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5,
except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense
. . . is legally invalid.” Section 1172.75, subdivision (b), requires the Secretary of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and county jail administrators to
“identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that
includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a)” and to provide certain information
about those individuals “to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.” Upon
receiving that information, the trial court “shall recall the sentence and resentence the
defendant” if the court “determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement
described in subdivision (a).” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) If the court determines that the
individual’s judgment includes such an enhancement, the defendant’s resentencing “shall
result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of
3
the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that
imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).)
Rhodius held that “section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the
underlying judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed before
January 1, 2020, regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead
stayed.” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1054.)
Here, defendant’s judgment included two stayed prior-prison-term enhancements
that were imposed before 2020. None were for sexually violent offenses. Under
Rhodius, the stay the original sentencing court entered on those enhancements does not
preclude defendant from resentencing under section 1172.75. We will therefore reverse
and remand the matter for the trial court to resentence defendant.
As defendant also argues, the People concede, and we agree, defendant’s new
abstract of judgment upon resentencing must reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement
of presentence custody credits. The court at defendant’s original sentencing calculated
342 days of presentence custody credits, comprised of 298 days credit for actual custody
and, under section 2933.1, 44 days of conduct credits, but omitted them from the abstract
of judgment. The court may calculate them anew or otherwise confirm the correct
credits.
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s order denying defendant resentencing under section 1172.75 is
reversed. The matter is remanded for the court to recall defendant’s sentence, hold a
resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75, subdivision (d), and resentence
4
defendant consistent with the statute. In resentencing defendant, the trial court must
ensure the new abstract of judgment reflects defendant’s presentence custody credits,
either calculated anew or by confirming the accuracy of previously omitted credits.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MENETREZ J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 even if their prior prison term enhancements were stayed rather than executed. The court remanded the case for resentencing and ordered the correction of the abstract of judgment to include presentence custody credits.
Issues
Whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if their prior prison term enhancements were stayed at sentencing.
Whether the trial court must include previously omitted presentence custody credits in the new abstract of judgment upon resentencing.
Disposition. Reversed and remanded.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Rhodius held that defendants whose enhanced prison prior term or terms were stayed at sentencing are eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.”
“the trial court also must ensure that defendant’s new abstract of judgment following resentencing reflects previously omitted presentence custody credits”