People v. Garateix CA4/3

DISCUSSION

I.

DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A RESENTENCING HEARING

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the trial court erred in interpreting section 1172.75 to preclude relief to defendants whose

3 sentences include a prior prison term enhancement which was imposed and stayed. The Attorney General argues the court is not required under section 1172.75 to conduct a resentencing hearing because the stayed enhancements did not lead to an increase in defendant’s term of punishment. Defendant contends the statute’s use of the term “imposed” includes prior enhancements that were imposed but stayed. On our de novo review of this issue of statutory interpretation, we agree with defendant. (People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961.) Several published opinions on this issue have concluded section 1172.75 applies to enhancements, like defendant’s, which were imposed but stayed. (Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 311–316, review granted; People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1282–1293 (Renteria); People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1276–1279, review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547 (Saldana).) We find the analysis in Christianson, Renteria, and Saldana…