People v. Saldana CA3

Filed 8/8/23 P. v. Saldana CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097966

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20111630)

v.

SILVERIO SALDANA,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2013, a jury found defendant Silverio Saldana guilty of possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and he was sentenced to 25 years to life in state prison as a three strikes offender. At the time, the trial court stayed four prior prison term enhancements found true under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).1

1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

Defendant appealed, and we affirmed the judgment in People v. Saldana (Jan. 8, 2015, C074302) (nonpub. opn.).2 Nearly a decade later, defense counsel moved to strike the four prior prison term enhancements under section 1172.75 and requested a full resentencing under People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857. The trial court struck the previously stayed enhancements as unauthorized, but declined to conduct a full resentencing. On appeal, the parties agree, as do we, that the trial court erred in failing to conduct a full resentencing after striking the prior prison term enhancements. Accordingly, we shall vacate the sentence and remand for a full resentencing proceeding. BACKGROUND We omit a summary of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction because they are not relevant to the issue raised on appeal. In January 2023, defendant filed a motion for resentencing under section 1172.75, which provides in relevant part 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 as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Defendant also requested that the trial court conduct a full resentencing hearing to revisit all its sentencing choices. The prosecution opposed the motion, arguing section 1172.75 did not apply to the stayed prior prison term enhancements. At a hearing in February 2023, the trial court struck the previously stayed prior prison term enhancements but found that it was not permitted to conduct a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. The court opined that striking a stayed