California Court of Appeal Nov 13, 2025 No. E083341Unpublished
Filed 11/13/25 P. v. Zavala CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E083341
v. (Super.Ct.No. SWF1300713)
FRANCISCO ROY ZAVALA, JR., OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Affirmed with directions.
Stephanie A. Lickel, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, James William Bilderback II, Assistant Attorney General, Holly D. Wilkens,
Elizabeth M. Renner and Meridith S. White, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and
Respondent.
1
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Francisco Roy Zavala, Jr., was sentenced to death in
2015 for first degree, special-circumstance murder. He appeals from the trial court’s
order denying him relief under Penal Code section 1172.75—the statute that provides a
capital appeal divests the trial court of jurisdiction to resentence him under section
1172.75 and (2), if not, whether section 1172.75 applies to stayed prior-prison-term
enhancements. While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court resolved the second
issue in the affirmative in Rhodius, holding 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.” (Id. at p. 1054.) However, neither issue impacts our
resolution of this case because the record reveals that Zavala’s judgment does not include
a prior-prison-term enhancement.
As the People point out in their respondent’s brief, although Zavala admitted
serving a prior prison term and the abstract of judgment includes two stayed prior-prison-
term enhancements, the trial court’s “oral pronouncement of judgment” did not “mention
the prior prison term enhancement pursuant to section 667.5, subdivision (b).” The
People argue that “[r]egardless [of that discrepancy], it is clear the trial court intended to
stay the sentences on all of the prior conviction enhancements.” According to the People,
the fact that any prior-prison-term enhancements that the trial court may have imposed
were also stayed is what makes Zavala ineligible for relief under section 1172.75. But
6
that view has the consequence of the discrepancy reversed. It is the trial court’s oral
pronouncement of judgment, not the abstract of judgment, that constitutes the judgment.
“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if
different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment
it purports to digest or summarize.” (Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185.) “Courts may
correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts (including this one) that have
properly assumed jurisdiction of cases have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment
that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.” (Ibid.) Here,
because the transcript of Zavala’s sentencing hearing demonstrates that the trial court did
not impose any prior-prison-term enhancements, Zavala is not a person described by
section 1172.75, subdivision (b), and he is therefore not entitled to relief under the
statute. For that reason, we affirm the trial court’s order. (See People v. Battle (2021)
11 Cal.5th 749, 800 [An appellate court reviews the trial court’s ruling, not its reasoning,
and will affirm on any correct ground.].)
7
DISPOSITION
The clerk of the superior court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to
reflect that the court did not impose any prior-prison-term enhancements under section
667.5, subdivision (b). The clerk of the superior court is directed to forward copies of the
corrected abstract of judgment to the CDCR. The order denying section 1172.75
resentencing is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
FIELDS J. We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MENETREZ J.
8
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because the trial court's oral pronouncement of judgment did not actually impose any prior-prison-term enhancements, despite clerical errors in the abstract of judgment.
Issues
Does a pending capital appeal divest the trial court of jurisdiction to resentence a defendant under Penal Code section 1172.75?
Does Penal Code section 1172.75 apply to stayed prior-prison-term enhancements?
Is a defendant entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the abstract of judgment erroneously includes enhancements not imposed in the oral pronouncement of judgment?
Disposition. Affirmed with directions.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment constitutes the judgment (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell)), we conclude that Zavala is not currently serving a term “for a judgment that includes” a now invalid prior-prison-term enhancement”
“An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.”