People v. Blake CA5, F085883M

Defendant Aaryn Wayne Blake was convicted of second degree robbery and giving false information to a police officer, with additional sentencing enhancements for prior convictions and use of a knife.
The trial court imposed prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b) but stayed their execution at the original sentencing.
Senate Bill 136 and subsequent legislation (now Penal Code § 1172.75) rendered most prior prison term enhancements invalid unless based on sexually violent offenses, and established procedures for resentencing affected defendants.
Blake petitioned for recall and resentencing under § 1172.75, arguing that the stayed enhancements made him eligible; the trial court disagreed and denied relief.
The Department of Corrections identified Blake as eligible for resentencing, which led to this appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1172.75 apply to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed and stayed?	Only enhancements that increased a defendant's sentence (imposed & executed) are subject to § 1172.75 relief.	"Imposed" includes enhancements that were pronounced but stayed, thus making him eligible for relief.	Court held that § 1172.75 applies to enhancements that were imposed and stayed; reversed and remanded for resentencing.

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (standard of statutory interpretation).
People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (meaning of "imposed" includes both executed and stayed enhancements).
People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2004) (trial court may not stay mandatory enhancements unless stricken).
People v. Jones, 8 Cal.App.4th 756 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992) (limitations on staying enhancements).
People v. Eberhardt, 186 Cal.App.3d 1112 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (enhancement imposition rules).