People v. Argel CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Argel contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court erred when it determined it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a full resentencing. We agree. Section 1172.75 requires CDCR to inform trial courts of inmates serving sentences with one or more now-invalid prior prison term enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Once a court

2 receives this information and confirms that the inmate’s sentence includes an invalid enhancement, it “shall recall [their] sentence and resentence” them. (Id., subd. (c).) During resentencing, “[t]he court shall apply . . . any . . . changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” (id., subd. (d)(2))— i.e., the court shall conduct a full resentencing (People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 311-317 (Christianson), review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189). Such resentencing “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) The plain language of section 1172.75 makes clear that the…