People v. Padilla CA4/3

DISCUSSION

Since section 1172.75’s enactment, a split of authority has developed as to whether a prior prison enhancement that was imposed but stayed entitles a defendant to resentencing. The majority of courts that have analyzed the issue have held that it does. (See e.g., People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 316-317, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189; People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, 1278-1279, review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547 (Saldana).) One court has held the sentence on the prior prison term enhancement must be imposed and executed to warrant resentencing. (People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, 48-49, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169 (Rhodius).)

3 In this appeal, Padilla argues the Legislature’s use of the phrase ‘“any sentence enhancement”’ in section 1172.75 “logically includes stayed enhancements.” We agree. Section 1172.75, on its face, applies to those defendants currently in custody and serving a sentence which “includes” a section 667.5 subdivision (b) enhancement. There is no requirement that the enhancement must have resulted in a lengthier sentence. The Attorney General disagrees with this analysis. Relying on Rhodius,…