California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 2025 No. E083233AUnpublished
Filed 10/30/25 P. v. Olvera 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083233
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF118400)
DAVID ARENAS OLVERA, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
John L. Staley, 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, Melissa Mandel and Seth M. Friedman,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant David Arenas Olvera, 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).
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.”
3
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 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 a stayed prior prison term enhancement that
was imposed before 2020. It was not for a sexually violent offense. Under Rhodius, the
stay the original sentencing court entered on the prior prison enhancement does not
preclude defendant from resentencing under section 1172.75. We therefore reverse and
remand the matter for the trial court to hold that hearing.
4
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
defendant consistent with the statute.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL 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 enhancement was stayed rather than executed.
Issues
Whether a defendant whose prior prison term enhancement was stayed is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
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.”
“Under Rhodius, the stay the original sentencing court entered on the prior prison enhancement does not preclude defendant from resentencing under section 1172.75.”