Green

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Green contends that (1) the court erred by concluding he is ineligible for resentencing because section 1172.75, subdivision (a) renders his section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement legally invalid; and (2) section

1172.75, subdivision (c) entitles him to a full resentencing.3 The People disagree that Green’s prison prior enhancement is invalid; however, they concede that, if we determine the enhancement is invalid, the statute requires the sentence be recalled and Green resentenced. Upon resentencing, they urge, Green’s 25 years-to-life sentence must be reimposed because the section 288, subdivision (a) conviction is a super strike.

A. Validity of the Prison Prior Enhancement

The parties dispute the continued validity of the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement based on recent amendments to resentencing law. When Green was sentenced, section 667.5, subdivision (b) required the court to “impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term served for any felony” when the prior prison term was “charged and admitted or found true in the action for the new offense.” (Former § 667.5, subds. (b) & (d); see Stats. 1997, ch. 504 (Assem. Bill No.…