California Court of Appeal Feb 25, 2026 No. E085062Unpublished
Filed 2/25/26 P. v. Rinke 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E085062
v. (Super.Ct.No. FSB1201172)
JESSE TYLER RINKE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Michael A. Smith,
Judge. (Retired judge of the San Bernardino Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to art. VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Reversed and remanded.
Rex Adam Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant
and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General,
and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
At a hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75,1 the court found defendant
and appellant Jesse Tyler Rinke ineligible for resentencing. On appeal, defendant
contends the court erred in declining to give him a resentencing hearing. We reverse and
The court sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 30 years to life on
count 1, a consecutive determinate term of 20 years on count 3, five years on the prior
serious felony conviction, and one year on each of the prior prison terms. Pursuant to
section 654, the court stayed the sentences on counts 2 and 4 and the enhancement
attached to count 2. (Rinke, supra, E063656.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2
Defendant appealed. This court affirmed the judgment but modified the sentence
to strike one of the prior prison terms that was based on the same prior conviction as the
prior serious felony conviction enhancement. (Rinke, supra, E063656.) On September
20, 2016, the court corrected the abstract of judgment to reflect the modified sentence,
which reduced defendant’s determinate term of imprisonment by one year.
At a section 1172.75 hearing on December 1, 2023,2 the People observed, “It
looks like [defendant] received a 26-year determinate term plus 30 to life. Of those 26
years, one was from a prison prior.” The court struck the remaining prior prison term
enhancement: “It will have the effect of reducing the defendant’s determinate term from
26 years to 25 years, that is still consecutive to the 30-to-life sentence.” The court
continued the matter for potential further resentencing.
At the hearing on July 12, 2024, the People informed the court, “I looked at the
defendant’s appellate history, and in 2016 there was an appellate opinion that in part
wiped out all of his prison priors. I’m not sure if the minutes or abstract reflect that. But
2 It is unclear from the record as originally filed how the section 1172.75 proceedings had been initiated. “[S]ection 1172.75 does not authorize a defendant to seek resentencing on his or her own motion or petition. Rather the process is triggered by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation [CDCR] identifying a defendant as a person serving a sentence that includes a prior prison term enhancement. [Citation.]” (People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 332; accord, People v. Newell (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 265, 268; People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 382 [Lower and appellate courts lack jurisdiction over a request for section 1172.75 relief brought solely by a defendant].) On our own motion, we took judicial notice of a CDCR list, which identifies individuals potentially eligible for section 1172.75 relief; defendant’s name appears on that list.
3
in 2016, his prison priors should have been removed. I want to make sure that []is
correct. And if it is, I would ask to take it off calendar.”
The court indicated it would review the file and check. Thereafter, the court
stated, “Yeah, there’s no—are no [section] 667.5(B) priors left.” The court noted, “But
we also did strike the [section] 667.5(b) prior in December 2023. Apparently, that had
already been stricken by the Court of Appeal.”
The court summarized the People’s contention as follows: “Your position is the
prior was not stricken pursuant to [section] 1172.75, it was stricken by the Court of
Appeal on a different ground that affirmed the sentence with no [section] 667.5(b), so we
have no jurisdiction to do anything?”
The People replied, “That’s exactly my position. He might have other
mechanisms for calendaring for a resentencing but [section] 1172.75 is not the right one.
For those grounds, we would ask to take it off calendar. If he has other grounds, he’s
welcome to file whatever petition he wants to for those grounds.”
Defense counsel responded, “I have not been able to review the appellate decision,
if they were stricken then or in December. I believe if they were struck prior to 2023,
they would not be eligible. But if they were struck in December 2023, he would be. I
haven’t had a chance to look at it. I don’t know if the Court can review the file and can
determine that today.”
The court replied, “So on 12/1/2023, it was on for [section] 1172.75. We did strike
the . . . [section] 667.5(b) prior. It appears that was a nullity because it had already been
4
stricken by the Court of Appeal on a different ground.” The court continued the matter to
allow defense counsel to review the file.
At the hearing on October 11, 2024, the court indicated, “So this is on for petition
for consideration for full resentencing, but his [section] 667.5(b) was actually stricken by
the Appellate Court previously.” The People responded, “It was 2016, the appeal came
back. The only change they made was striking the prison prior as a duplicative prior or
dual-use prior. So they struck it in 2016. I don’t know if it came back on remittitur to
correct that, but it should have been stricken in 2016. He only had one.”
The court then posited, “Given the nature of cases, he’s not eligible for
resentencing.” The People responded, “Not under [section] 1172.[75.] That would have
been a prison prior that was already stricken, so his sentence doesn’t have any eligible
priors to 1172.[7]5.” Defense counsel replied, “I’m in agreement that it does appear that
his prison prior was previously stricken in 2016, thus there’s no avenue for relief under
the law under this particular cloth.” Thus, the court found defendant ineligible for
resentencing.
II. DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that the order finding him ineligible for resentencing must be
reversed and the matter remanded for a full resentencing hearing. The People concede.
We agree.
“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),
5
which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior
crimes except for ‘sexually violent offense[s] as defined in 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
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.]” (People v.
Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1054 (Rhodius).)
“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
6
‘individuals . . . currently serving a sentence based on the enhancement’ and ‘all other
individuals.’ [Citation.]” (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1055.)
“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,
7
regardless of whether the enhancement was then executed or instead stayed. [Citation.]”
(Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1054.)
Here, defendant’s judgment included two prior prison term enhancements that
were imposed and executed before January 1, 2020. (Rinke, supra, E063656.) Neither
prior prison term enhancement was for a sexually violent offense.
The court, the People, and defense counsel below all erroneously asserted that
defendant only ever had one prior prison term enhancement, which was stricken in 2016
pursuant to this court’s modification. The court and the parties all erroneously asserted
that the court’s striking of defendant’s prior prison term enhancement in December 2023,
was a “nullity.”
However, the record reflects that defendant had two prior prison terms, only one of
which was stricken pursuant to this court’s modification in 2016. The court struck the
remaining prior prison term in 2023 pursuant to section 1172.75 but continued the matter
for further resentencing. Thus, defendant was a person serving a sentence that included a
prior prison term enhancement. The court erred in determining that defendant was
ineligible for a resentencing hearing. Therefore, pursuant to Rhodius, the matter must be
reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to hold a full resentencing
hearing.
8
III. DISPOSITION
The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to hold a full
resentencing hearing. We express no opinion on whether defendant would be entitled to
any further relief at the resentencing hearing on remand.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER Acting P. J.
We concur:
RAPHAEL J.
LEE J.
9
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the defendant was eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 because his judgment included a prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020, that was not for a sexually violent offense.
Issues
Whether the defendant was eligible for resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 despite a prior appellate modification of his sentence.
Whether the trial court erred in finding the defendant ineligible for a full resentencing hearing.
Disposition. reversed and remanded
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“The court erred in determining that defendant was ineligible for a resentencing hearing.”
“Therefore, pursuant to Rhodius, the matter must be reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to hold a full resentencing hearing.”