People v. Maple CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Nov 21, 2025 No. B336250Unpublished

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 his prior prison term enhancement was based on a sexually violent offense, which is expressly excluded from the statute's relief.

Issues

Whether a defendant is eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the prior prison term enhancement was stayed rather than executed.
Whether the defendant's prior prison term enhancement was based on a sexually violent offense, thereby rendering him ineligible for relief under section 1172.75.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing if the judgment includes a qualifying section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, regardless of whether the enhancement was executed or stayed.”

“Maple is therefore ineligible for section 1172.75 resentencing.”

Filed 11/21/25 P. v. Maple CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B336250

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA040400) v.

WALTER MAPLE, Jr.,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Laura Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed. John Steinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Byrne and Susan S. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗‗

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 Walter Maple, Jr., challenges a trial court order denying his petition for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75.2 We affirm the trial court order. BACKGROUND In 1999, Maple was charged by information with two counts of forcible rape. (§ 261, subd. (a)(2).) As to both counts, the information also charged Maple with personally using a dangerous or deadly weapon. (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1).) It further alleged Maple had suffered two prior serious or violent felony convictions or juvenile adjudications for assault to commit rape (§ 220) and forcible oral copulation (former § 288a, subd. (c)), pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and section 667, subdivisions (b) through (i), and that Maple had been convicted of a serious felony within the meaning of section 667, subdivision (a)(1). The section 220 and section 288a, subdivision (c) convictions were both from a 1991 Los Angeles County case, No. NA006653. The information further alleged Maple had suffered three prior convictions within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b): the 1991 section 220 and section 288a, subdivision (c) convictions, and a 1995 section 243, subdivision (c)

People v. Maple CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B336250

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

ADAMS, J.

HANASONO, J.

AI Brief