People v. Rhodius (Cal., June 26, 2025, No. S283169) 2025 WL 1763117
Summary: California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified defendant as person serving sentence that included one-year prior prison term enhancements for crimes that were not sexually violent offenses. The Superior Court struck enhancements from judgment of sentence but denied defendant’s request for full resentencing hearing. Defendant appealed. The Fourth District Court of Appeal affirmed. Defendant petitioned for review, which was granted.
The Supreme Court held that statute mandating resentencing hearing based on invalidation of one-year prior prison term enhancement of any sentence “imposed” prior to enumerated date, unless prior term was for sexually violent offense also applied to sentences that were imposed and stayed.
One year enhancement for prison priors
Before 2020, the Penal Code directed sentencing courts to “impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term” the defendant had previously served for a felony. (Pen. Code, § 667.5.) Effective January 1, 2020, the Legislature eliminated these one-year prior-prison-term enhancements except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses. Two years later, the Legislature made the change retroactive. In Penal Code section 1172.75, the Legislature declared that, aside from enhancements imposed for sexually violent offenses, “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to” Penal Code 667.5, subdivision (b) “is legally invalid.” In the same provision, the Legislature established a mechanism for resentencing individuals “currently serving a term for a judgment that includes” such an enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 1172.75, subd. (b).)
Is a defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when the judgment in the defendant’s criminal case includes a prior-prison-term enhancement that was imposed but then stayed? The Court of Appeal answered no. The Supreme Court concluded: Penal Code 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.
Before 2019, Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) (section 667.5(b)) instructed trial courts to “impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term” served for a felony.
In 2019, the Legislature eliminated prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes (except for sexually violent offenses) In 2021, this change was made retroactive through Penal Code section 1171.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.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a) (section 1172.75(a)).)
A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. (§ 1172.75, subds. (a), (c).) 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).” (Id., subd. (b).) 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).” (Id., subd. (c).) “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.” (Ibid.)
Section 1172.75, 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.” (Id., subd. (d)(1).) 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.” (Id., subd. (d)(2).) 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.” (Id., subd. (d)(3).)
Rhodius was charged with possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)), possession for sale of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378), possession of a controlled substance while armed with a loaded firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)), with sentencing enhancement allegations that he suffered two prison priors (Pen. Code, § 667.5, former subd. (b)), one serious felony prior (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)), and one strike prior (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (c), (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1). He received a stipulated sentence of 11 years in this case as well as three years and four months on two other cases, for a total sentence of 14 years, 4 months for all three cases. The trial court imposed one year for each prior-prison-term enhancement “pursuant to the agreement with the [district attorney]” but “stayed [them] permanently pursuant to [Penal Code section] 1385.”The effect of granting a stay was to prevent execution of the enhancement, but “preserv[e] the possibility of imposition of the stayed portion should a reversal on appeal reduce the unstayed portion of the sentence.”
In 2022, CDCR identified Rhodius as an inmate whose judgment included an enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), and notified the trial court. The court denied Rhodius’s request for a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, subdivision (c). The court reasoned that his prior-prison-term enhancements were not “imposed” within the meaning of section 1172.75(a) because they were imposed and stayed, not imposed and executed.
The Court of Appeal affirmed.
The critical question before the Court was the meaning of the word “imposed.”
The Supreme Court concluded that section 1172.75(a) is most naturally read to mean that a covered enhancement is invalid if it was “imposed” before January 1, 2020, not just if it was “imposed and executed.” Section 1172.75(a) applies to enhancements that were imposed as part of the defendant’s original judgment, regardless of whether the enhancement was stayed or executed. If the enhancement is no longer authorized under the current version of section 667.5(b), section 1172.75(a) renders the enhancement invalid. The retroactive invalidation of the previously imposed enhancements in turn mandates resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures set forth therein.
Disposition
The judgment of the Court of Appeal is reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.