Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In 2013, a jury convicted Guy David Reed of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury, battery causing serious bodily injury, and criminal threats. The jury also found that Reed inflicted great bodily injury. Reed admitted three prior prison terms, one prior serious felony conviction, and one prior serious and violent felony strike conviction. The trial court sentenced Reed to 16 years in state prison and imposed the three prior prison term enhancements but struck the punishment for each of them.
In 2022, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court that Reed was serving a term for a judgment that included prior prison term enhancements now invalid under Penal Code section 1172.75. In December 2023, the trial court held a hearing and declined to resentence Reed, finding that he was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. Reed appealed, arguing that section 1172.75 applies to defendants who had their punishment struck on prior prison term sentencing enhancements.
In a prior unpublished opinion, the Court of Appeal disagreed with Reed and affirmed. The California Supreme Court granted review and transferred the case back with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order. The court explained that section 1172.75, subdivision (a), provides that any sentence enhancement imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense, is legally invalid. Section 1172.75, subdivision (b), requires the Secretary of CDCR and county jail administrators to identify persons in custody currently serving terms for judgments that include such enhancements and to provide information to the sentencing court. Upon receiving that information, the trial court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant if the court determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).
The court noted that in Espino, the Supreme Court held that section 1172.75 applies to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but as to which the punishment was struck. Because section 1172.75 applies to Reed's prior prison term enhancements, he is entitled to resentencing under subdivision (d) of the statute. The People conceded the point on appeal.
The court granted Reed's request for judicial notice of declarations filed in another case and augmented the record to include the CDCR list dated June 16, 2022, listing individuals eligible for relief under section 1172.75. Reed is listed on page 27 of that document.
Key Takeaways
- Penal Code section 1172.75 applies to defendants whose prior prison term enhancements were imposed but had their punishment struck, not just those currently serving the enhancement punishment.
- The California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57 resolved the question of whether section 1172.75 covers struck enhancements, holding that it does.
- Upon determining that a defendant's judgment includes an enhancement described in section 1172.75, subdivision (a), the trial court must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant, and the resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's order finding Reed ineligible for resentencing and directed the trial court to strike Reed's prior prison term enhancements and resentence him pursuant to subdivision (d) of section 1172.75.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies the scope of Penal Code section 1172.75 following the California Supreme Court's guidance in People v. Espino. Defendants who had prior prison term enhancements imposed but whose punishment was struck are nonetheless entitled to resentencing under the statute. The ruling ensures that trial courts properly apply section 1172.75 to all eligible defendants identified by CDCR, regardless of whether the enhancement punishment was originally struck.
The case also demonstrates the effect of a Supreme Court transfer order directing reconsideration in light of new precedent. The Court of Appeal had previously affirmed the trial court's denial of relief, but after the Supreme Court's decision in Espino, the appellate court reversed and directed resentencing.