People v. Castaneda CA2/6

DISCUSSION

Castaneda argues that a full resentencing hearing is required for any defendant for whom an invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement was imposed, whether the enhancement was executed or stayed. He relies upon the statutory language of section 1172.75 and its legislative history to support his argument. Section 1172.75, subdivision (a) states 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

3 offense . . . is legally invalid.” Section 1172.75 instructs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to identify those persons in its custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes a prior prison term enhancement (excluding sexually violent offenses) and provide such information to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement. (Id., subd. (b).) The court must then review the judgment and determine whether it includes a sentencing enhancement described in section 1172.75, subdivision (a). (Id., subd. (c).) If the trial court determines that the judgment includes an enhancement…