Court Opinion

ID: 9952092
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-19 18:02:08.867391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:38:01.706241
License: Public Domain

Filed 3/19/24 P. v. Martin 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     NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,                                                   2d Crim. No. B327562
                                                             (Super. Ct. No. 1350270)
     Plaintiff and Respondent,                               (Santa Barbara County)

v.

CURTIS GENE MARTIN,

     Defendant and Appellant.

     Curtis Gene Martin appeals from the trial court’s order
denying his request for resentencing after the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) identified him as a
person serving an invalid sentence. (Pen. Code,1 § 1172.75.)
Martin contends the court was required to recall his sentence
because it included a now-invalid enhancement. We vacate the
denial order and remand for resentencing.

         1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code.
             FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
       In 2012, Martin pleaded no contest to attempted murder
(§§ 664/187, subd. (a)), and admitted that he inflicted great bodily
injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and used a deadly weapon (§ 12022,
subd. (b)(1)) when committing his offense. He also admitted that
the offense was a hate crime (§ 422.75, subd. (a)), that he had a
prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-
(d)) and prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and that
he served a prior term in prison (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The
trial court sentenced him to 26 years to life in state prison: 14
years to life on the attempted murder, three years for inflicting
great bodily injury, one year for using a deadly weapon, three
years for committing a hate crime, and five years for the prior
serious felony. The court stayed the one-year term on Martin’s
prison prior.
       CDCR subsequently notified the trial court that Martin’s
sentence included a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement,
rendering him eligible to have his sentence recalled under section
1172.75. The court tentatively determined that Martin was
ineligible for section 1172.75 relief because the prison prior had
been stayed.
       After a hearing, the court declined to recall Martin’s
sentence. It concluded that section 1172.75 only applies to those
“currently serving an additional year in prison because of the
imposition of the punishment for [a prior prison term]
enhancement.” (Italics original.) In the court’s view, Martin was
not such a prisoner since the enhancement had been stayed. The
court also believed there was “no legal authority to stay a prison

                                  2
prior” but only to impose or strike such an enhancement.2 It
concluded that the Legislature did not intend for it to recall
Martin’s sentence due to the imposition of an illegal sentence,
and struck the stayed prison prior.
                           DISCUSSION
       Martin contends the trial court should have recalled his
sentence because it included a now-invalid enhancement for his
prior prison term. We agree.
       Section 1172.75 requires CDCR to inform trial courts of
inmates serving sentences with one or more now-invalid prior
prison term enhancements. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Once a court
receives this information and confirms that the inmate’s sentence
includes an invalid enhancement, it “shall recall [their] sentence
and resentence” them. (Id., subd. (c), italics added.) During
resentencing, “[t]he court shall apply . . . any . . . changes in law
that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion” (id., subd.
(d)(2))—i.e., the court shall conduct a full resentencing
(Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 314-317, review
granted). Such resentencing “shall result in a lesser sentence
than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of
the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would
endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).)
       Here, CDCR informed the trial court that Martin’s sentence
included a now-invalid prison prior. The court confirmed that it
did. But instead of recalling Martin’s sentence and resentencing

      2 We express no opinion as to whether the trial court’s
belief that a prison prior may not be stayed was correct. (See,
e.g., People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, 315-316,
review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283189 (Christianson).)

                                 3
him by applying changes in the law that have occurred since
2012,3 the court administratively struck the invalid prison prior.
That was error. (Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 315-
317, review granted; see also People v. Saldana (2023) 97
Cal.App.5th 1270, 1275-1279, review granted Mar. 12, 2024,
S283547 (Saldana); People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th
1276, 1281-1283 (Renteria).) “By its plain terms, section
1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial
court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (Monroe, supra,
85 Cal.App.5th at p. 402.)
      The Attorney General counters that recall was not required
here because the invalid enhancement had been imposed and
stayed. He posits “it would be impossible to reduce a sentence ‘as
a result of the repealed enhancement,’ ” as required by section
1172.75, subdivision (d)(1), “if the defendant’s term of
imprisonment was not increased as a result of the enhancement
in the first place.” (Italics original.) He also argues the history of
section 1172.75 shows that the Legislature did not intend for the
statute to apply to defendants whose now-invalid enhancements
were stayed.
      The Attorney General raised these same arguments in
Saldana, Christianson, and Renteria, and all three courts
rejected them. (Saldana, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1275-1279,
review granted; Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 311-
317, review granted; Renteria, supra, 96 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1281-

      3 For example, trial courts now have the power to strike
five-year serious felony enhancements. (People v. Monroe (2022)
85 Cal.App.5th 393, 397.)

                                  4
1283.) We agree with our sister courts.4 As the Christianson
court noted, “the Legislature chose to mandate a full
resentencing for those individuals impacted by a now[-]invalid
section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement. We see no reason to
differentiate between [a] defendant[] serving an additional term
based specifically on a now[-]invalid enhancement[] and [a
defendant] for whom the enhancement was imposed but stayed.
In both instances, the presence of the enhancement was one
component considered by the sentencing court in pronouncing the
overall sentence.” (Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 315,
review granted.)
                           DISPOSITION
       The trial court’s March 30, 2023, order declining to recall
and resentence Martin is vacated, and the matter is remanded
for a full resentencing pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.
We express no view as to how the court shall exercise its
sentencing discretion upon remand.
       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

                                    BALTODANO, J.

We concur:

             YEGAN, Acting P. J.                CODY, J.

      4 We respectfully disagree with People v. Rhodius (2023) 97
Cal.App.5th 38, 42-49, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169,
which concluded that “imposed” in section 1172.75 only includes
now-invalid prior prison term enhancements that were “imposed
and executed.”

                                5
                    Patricia L. Kelly, Judge

           Superior Court County of Santa Barbara

               ______________________________

      Wayne C. Tobin, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant
Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and David E. Madeo, Deputy
Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.