California Court of Appeal Nov 7, 2025 No. E083016AUnpublished
Filed 11/7/25 P. v. Bowman CA4/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083016
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF090904)
NORMA MARIA BOWMAN, 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, Christopher Beesley and
Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
At a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 the court found defendant
and appellant Norma Maria Bowman ineligible for a full resentencing hearing. On
appeal, defendant contended this court should reverse the order and remand the matter to
the trial court with directions to hold a full resentencing hearing. We affirmed.
The court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 35 years.
The court imposed a 25-year term for the burglary offense and two, consecutive, five-
year terms for the prior serious felony conviction enhancements. The court stayed
punishment on the prior prison term enhancements. (Bowman, supra, E029174.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2
Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment. (Bowman, supra,
E029174.)
On March 14, 2019, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
(CDCR) filed a letter indicating that the court’s most recent abstract of judgment
appeared to have invalidly reflected that the court imposed a five-year term on one of the
prior prison term enhancements.2 On March 20, 2019, the court issued a corrected
abstract of judgment in which it appears to have stricken two of the prior prison terms
and stayed imposition of punishment on the remaining two.
On December 28, 2023, at a hearing at which counsel represented defendant, the
court denied defendant’s request for a full resentencing hearing. The court struck the
prior prison term enhancements.
Defendant appealed. We affirmed the court’s order because defendant’s judgment
had included prior prison terms upon which the court stayed punishment; thus, we held
that since defendant was not serving a term of imprisonment for the enhancements, he
was not entitled to a full resentencing hearing.
II. DISCUSSION
“In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the
Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 136),
which amended section 667.5[, subdivision] (b) to eliminate prior-prison-term
enhancements for all prior crimes except for ‘sexually violent offense[s] as defined in
2 The clerk appears to have inserted a “5” instead of an “S” next to one of the priors.
3
subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.’ (Stats. 2019,
ch. 590, § 1.) In 2021, Senate Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) made this change
retroactive. It enacted Penal Code section 1171.1 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §§ 1, 3), later
renumbered without substantive change as Penal Code section 1172.75 (section 1172.75)
(Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12), which declares: ‘Any 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 as defined
in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.’
[Citation.]” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1054.)
“A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid
enhancement is entitled to resentencing. [Citation.] To facilitate the process, the statute
directs California’s Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to ‘identify
those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an
enhancement described in subdivision (a).’ [Citation.] Upon receiving that information,
the sentencing court must ‘review the judgment and verify that the current judgment
includes a sentencing enhancement described in subdivision (a).’ [Citation.] ‘If the court
determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision
(a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.’ [Citation.] The
statute provides separate deadlines for identification, review, and resentencing of
‘individuals . . . currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement’ and ‘all other
individuals.’ [Citation.]” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1055.)
4
“Section 1172.75, subdivision (d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing
once a sentence has been recalled. As relevant here, subdivision (d) specifies:
‘Resentencing pursuant to this section 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. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer
sentence than the one originally imposed.’ [Citation.] The trial court must ‘apply the
sentencing rules of the Judicial Council’ as well as ‘any other changes in law that reduce
sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to
promote uniformity of sentencing.’ [Citation.] In addition, the court may ‘consider
postconviction factors, including, but not limited to, the disciplinary record and record of
rehabilitation of the defendant while incarcerated, evidence that reflects whether age,
time served, and diminished physical condition, if any, have reduced the defendant’s risk
for future violence, and evidence that reflects that circumstances have changed since the
original sentencing so that continued incarceration is no longer in the interest of justice.’
[Citation.]” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1055.)
“[S]ection 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. [Citation.]”
(Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1054.)
5
Here, defendant’s judgment included four stayed prior prison term enhancements
that were imposed before January 1, 2020. None of the prior prison terms were for
sexually violent offenses. At the section 1172.75 hearing, the court denied defendant’s
request for a full resentencing hearing. Thus, pursuant to Rhodius, the matter must be
reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to hold a full resentencing
hearing.
III. DISPOSITION
The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a full
resentencing hearing. We express no opinion as to whether defendant should be entitled
to any further relief on remand.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
I concur:
CODRINGTON J.
RAPHAEL J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that a defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 if their judgment includes a prior-prison-term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020, regardless of whether that enhancement was executed or stayed.
Issues
Whether a defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when their judgment includes stayed prior-prison-term enhancements.