California Court of Appeal Oct 30, 2025 No. E082986AUnpublished
Filed 10/30/25 P. v. Noriega 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082986
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF127423)
PETER PAUL NORIEGA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed and remanded.
Jared G. Coleman, 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, James M. Toohey and Arlene A. Sevidal,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Peter Paul Noriega 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)).
The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate indeterminate term of 55 years
to life in prison, consecutive to a determinate term of seven years, plus other concurrent
components to his sentence. (Noriega, supra, E042520.) In pertinent part, the court
imposed a one-year enhanced term for defendant’s prison prior, but stayed its execution.
In October 2016 the trial court granted defendant’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
and dismissed his active gang participation conviction in count 5, in the interests of
justice.
In December 2023 the trial court found defendant ineligible for recall and
resentencing under section 1172.75. On appeal, this court affirmed the trial court’s
ruling. (People v. Noriega (April 23, 2025, E082986) [nonpub. opn.].) We subsequently
vacated that decision following Rhodius, and the People waived filing a supplemental
brief, conceding by letter 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
3
“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
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
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.
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
4
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.
McKINSTER J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant whose prior prison term enhancement was stayed at sentencing is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling in People v. Rhodius.
Issues
Whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if their prior prison term enhancement was stayed rather than executed.
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.”