People v. Byrd CA1/5
Filed 6/26/24 P. v. Byrd CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A169474 v. LEONARD BYRD, (Solano County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. FCR247165)
Leonard Byrd appeals after the trial court resentenced him pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 His appointed counsel on appeal filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our independent review of the record, citing People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Wende does not apply to a defendant’s appeal from the denial of postconviction relief. (People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 221-222, 226-227, 231 (Delgadillo).) However, we have exercised our discretion to independently review the record (id. at p. 232), and we affirm.
BACKGROUND
A.
Before January 1, 2020, section 667.5, former subdivision (b), required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence
1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal
Code. 1
enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a prior prison term and not remained free of custody for at least five years. (§ 667.5, former subd. (b), as amended by Stats. 2018, ch. 423, § 65; People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380 (Burgess).) Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) amended section 667.5 by limiting the enhancement to only prior prison terms served for sexually violent offenses. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; Burgess, at pp. 379- 380.)
As a result of later legislation, section 1172.75 now invalidates all other prior prison term enhancements—imposed under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), before January 1, 2020 (§ 1172.75, subd. (a))—and provides a mechanism for courts to resentence defendants serving terms which include such enhancements. (Id., subds. (b)-(d); People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 966; Burgess, supra, 86 Cal.App.5th at p. 380.) In doing so, courts “shall apply . . . 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.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(2).) “By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402.)
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)