Filed 11/22/23 P. v. Beadle CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JEFFREY F. BEADLE,

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B327520

(Super. Ct. No. NA105727)

(Los Angeles County)

Jeffrey F. Beadle appeals the denial of his petition for 

resentencing under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. In 2018, a jury 

convicted appellant of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor 

(§ 261.5, subd. (c); count 1), human trafficking of a minor (§ 236.1, 

subd. (c)(1)), pimping of a minor (§ 266h, subd. (b)(1)), pandering 

with a minor (§ 266i, subd. (b)(1)), and seven counts of dissuading 

a witness from testifying (§ 136.1, subd. (a)(1)). Prior strike and 

prior prison term allegations (§ 667, subd. (a)(1), former § 667.5, 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless 

otherwise noted.
2

subd. (b)) were found true based on appellant’s prior 2011 

conviction and prison term for committing a lewd act on a child

under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)). As to count 1, the jury also 

found true an allegation that appellant personally inflicted great 

bodily injury in committing the offense (§ 12022.7). The trial 

court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 47 years in state 

prison. Imposition of the one-year prior prison term 

enhancement under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) was 

stayed. 

When appellant was convicted and sentenced, defendants 

were subject to a one-year prison term enhancement for each true 

finding on allegations they had served a prior prison term and 

had thereafter remained free from custody for at least five years. 

(Former § 667.5, subd. (b).) Effective January 1, 2020, as enacted 

pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 136, section 667.5, subdivision (b) 

was amended to limit prior prison term enhancements to prior 

terms imposed for sexually violent offenses “as defined in 

subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions 

Code.” (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; People v. Escobedo (2023) 95

Cal.App.5th 440, 445 (Escobedo).)

The Legislature subsequently enacted SB 483, which 

sought to make the changes effected by SB 136 retroactive. 

(Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 1; Escobedo, supra, 95 Cal.App.5th at

p. 445.) SB 483 went into effect on January 1, 2022, and added 

former section 1171.1 (now section 1172.75) to the Penal Code. 

(Ibid.) Section 1172.75 provides that “[a]ny sentence 

enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, 

pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any 

enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent 

offense . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a), italics added.)
3

Section 1172.75 also establishes a mechanism to provide 

affected defendants a remedy for those legally invalid 

enhancements. Subdivision (b) directs the Secretary of the 

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 

(“CDCR”) and the correctional administrator of each county to

“identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term 

for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in 

subdivision (a) and . . . provide the name of each person, along 

with the person’s date of birth and the relevant case number or 

docket number, to the sentencing court that imposed the 

enhancement.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) After the trial court 

receives from the CDCR and county correctional administrator 

the information included in subdivision (b) of the statute, “the 

court shall review the judgment and verify that the current 

judgment includes a sentencing enhancement described in 

subdivision (a),” and if so, “recall the sentence and resentence the 

defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).)

In December 2022, the trial court reviewed appellant’s case 

pursuant to section 1172.75 and found him ineligible for 

resentencing because (1) his prior conviction for committing a 

lewd act on child (§ 288, subd. (a)) is a sexually violent offense, 

and (2) he is not currently serving a sentence based on the 

enhancement because imposition of the one-year enhancement 

was stayed. 

Appellant filed a notice of appeal and we appointed counsel 

to represent him. After reviewing the record, counsel filed a brief 

raising no issues in accordance with People v. Delgadillo (2022)

14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) and requested that we independently 

review the record for error. We advised appellant of his right to 

personally submit any contentions or issues he wished us to 
4

consider. Appellant subsequently filed a supplemental brief

contending the court erred in declining to resentence him because 

his prior conviction for committing a lewd act on a child (§ 288, 

subd. (a)) does not qualify a sexually violent offense. He also 

claims he is eligible for relief under section 1172.75

notwithstanding that imposition of the sentencing enhancement 

for the prior conviction was stayed.

2 We are not persuaded.

One-year prior prison term enhancements remain valid for 

convictions of crimes that are defined in subdivision (b) of section 

6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code as sexually violent 

offenses. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) Accordingly, defendants serving 

sentences that include such enhancements are not entitled to 

resentencing relief under section 1172.75. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) 

Lewd conduct on a child under the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) is 

identified as a sexually violent offense (Welf. & Inst. Code, 

§ 6600, subd. (b).) Contrary to appellant’s claim, section 288 is 

not “considered a wobbler” (i.e, subject to punishment as either a 

misdemeanor or a felony) that “had to be placed by a judge or 

prosecutor within the scope of” section 667.5. Because appellant’s 

prior conviction under section 288, subdivision (a) was for a 

sexually violent offense, the court correctly found he was not 

eligible for resentencing under section 1172.5. In light of this 

conclusion, we need not address appellant’s alternative 

contention that he would otherwise be eligible for relief under

2 Because appellant filed a supplemental brief, we are 

“required to evaluate the specific arguments presented in that 

brief and . . . issue a written opinion.” (Delgadillo, supra, 14 

Cal.5th at p. 232.)
5

section 1172.75 even though imposition of the one-year 

enhancement for the prior conviction was stayed.3

The judgment is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

CODY, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P. J.

BALTODANO, J.

3 After appellant filed his supplemental brief, he submitted 

a copy of the abstract of judgment on his prior conviction for 

committing a lewd act on a child in violation of section 288, 

subdivision (a) (Los Angeles County Superior Ct. Case no. 

VA110758) and requested that it be attached to his brief. 

Although we grant the request, the abstract merely provides 

further support for the conclusion that he is not entitled to relief 

under section 1172.75. 
6

Laura Laesecke, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.