People v. Lamb CA4/3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMarch 13, 2025G063640California1,146 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

Effective January 1, 2022, section 1172.75 provides that certain one-year sentence enhancements for prior prison terms imposed under former section 667.5(b) are legally invalid and provides a mechanism for resentencing individuals serving judgments that include one or more of those enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subds. (a)–(c).) The question before us in this appeal is whether section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to a full resentencing hearing if the defendant’s prior prison term enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. There is a split of authority on the issue, and we await resolution by our Supreme Court. In our own district, the divisions have disagreed on the issue. (Compare People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, 40–41, 45, 48–49, [prison priors that were imposed but stayed are not entitled to relief under the statute], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169, with People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 305 [§ 1172.75 requires resentencing for stayed prior prison term enhancement], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson).)2 Lamb argues “[i]t is of no moment that the sentencing court chose to strike the punishment for the…

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.