People v. Ware CA2/1

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJuly 18, 2024B332698California301 words

Opinion

Opinion

Bendix, J.

DISCUSSION

Although defendant’s initial motion was brought under section 1171.1,4 the prosecutor later brought a motion pursuant to section 1172.1. Section 1172.1 allows a district attorney (among others) to recommend the court recall the sentence and resentence the defendants “in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced . . . .” (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1); People v. Vaesau (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 132, 138, 144.)5 Because the

Senate Bill No. 483 added section 1171.1 to the Penal Code, which was subsequently renumbered without substantive change as section 1172.75. (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12, eff. June 30, 2022.) Section 1172.75 provides: “Any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5 [a prison prior], except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a); People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 399.) 5 “ ‘Assembly Bill No. 1540 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 719, §§ 1–7) (Assembly Bill 1540) came into effect on January 1, 2022, and moved the recall and resentencing provisions of former section…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.