People v. Butler CA4/2, E083059

Dupree Lavan Butler was convicted of several offenses, including attempted voluntary manslaughter, assault, corporal injury on a spouse, and others, and received a sentence including three one-year enhancements for prior prison terms under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
After Butler's conviction but before finality, Senate Bill No. 136 amended § 667.5(b) to limit these enhancements only to sexually violent offenses, which did not apply to Butler.
On Butler’s first appeal, the Court of Appeal struck the three prior prison term enhancements and remanded for resentencing, during which the enhancements’ punishment was stricken and the original sentence (minus enhancements) reimposed.
Butler later sought resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.75, which invalidates certain § 667.5(b) enhancements imposed prior to January 1, 2020, arguing he qualified for relief and a new resentencing.
The trial court denied relief under § 1172.75, holding Butler had already received the benefit of resentencing when the enhancements were stricken following his first appeal.
The appellate court affirmed, ordering only an administrative correction to the abstract of judgment to clearly reflect the enhancements were stricken.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Applicability of § 1172.75 resentencing for stricken enhancements	Enhancements already stricken and Butler already resentenced; nothing left to correct	Entitled to resentencing because the abstract still lists enhancements; stricken punishment doesn't remove collateral potential consequences	§ 1172.75 does not apply where enhancements already stricken; no further resentencing required
Interpretation of "imposed" under § 1172.75 (stricken vs. stayed vs. executed)	Follows Rhodius: "imposed" means both imposed and executed; thus, stricken enhancements aren't eligible	Follows cases like Espino: any imposed enhancement, even if stricken or stayed, warrants full resentencing	Court applies Rhodius; stricken enhancements are not subject to § 1172.75 resentencing
Removal of stricken enhancements from abstract of judgment	N/A	Abstract indicates only punishment stricken, not enhancement; should clarify to avoid collateral issues	Directs correction of the record so enhancements are fully omitted
Impact of prior resentencing under SB 136 on subsequent relief	Relief already granted in previous appeal; no need for further proceedings	Eligible for resentencing if enhancements still present on record under new law	Prior resentencing suffices; only record needs correction

People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (Defines sentence enhancement as an additional term to base sentence)
People v. Fuentes, 1 Cal.5th 218 (Cal. 2016) (Striking enhancement precludes its use in sentencing)
People v. Flores, 63 Cal.App.5th 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (Striking enhancement removes it from defendant’s record and future impact)