People v. Christianson
97 Cal.App.5th 300
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2016 Christianson pleaded guilty in two cases and received a joint sentence reflecting plea negotiations: an indicated nine-year term in the primary case and a concurrent two-year term in the other case.
- The trial court’s oral pronouncement and the abstract of judgment listed five one‑year prior-prison-term enhancements under former Penal Code § 667.5, subd. (b), each marked on the abstract with an “S” (stayed).
- Senate Bill No. 136 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) narrowed § 667.5(b); SB 483 (enacting § 1172.75, effective Jan. 1, 2022) made many pre‑2020 § 667.5(b) enhancements legally invalid and created a process for CDCR to identify affected inmates and for trial courts to recall sentences and resentence.
- CDCR identified Christianson under § 1172.75; the trial court concluded the statute did not apply to enhancements that were imposed but stayed and administratively struck the stayed priors instead of conducting a full resentencing.
- Christianson appealed; the Court of Appeal reviewed statutory interpretation de novo and considered legislative purpose and history.
- The Court of Appeal reversed: § 1172.75 applies when the abstract of judgment includes a pre‑2020 § 667.5(b) enhancement even if that enhancement was imposed and stayed; the proper remedy is full resentencing under § 1172.75.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Christianson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1172.75 applies when a pre‑2020 § 667.5(b) enhancement was imposed but stayed and still appears on the abstract of judgment | § 1172.75 applies only to enhancements that were imposed and executed (i.e., that actually add time now being served); stayed enhancements are unauthorized and subject to administrative correction, not resentencing | § 1172.75 covers any enhancement that "was imposed" and appears in the current judgment/abstract, regardless of whether it was stayed, so full resentencing is required | The statute covers enhancements that were imposed and stayed; court must resentence under § 1172.75 when the abstract includes a now‑invalid § 667.5(b) enhancement |
| Whether administratively striking stayed § 667.5(b) enhancements (rather than full resentencing) is the appropriate remedy | Administrative correction is sufficient when stayed enhancements were unauthorized | Administrative correction is inadequate; legislative scheme requires full resentencing to account for elimination of the enhancement and other applicable sentencing reforms | Full resentencing is the proper remedy; removing a component of an aggregate sentence infects the whole and triggers resentencing under § 1172.75 |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (discusses dual meanings of "impose" and statutory context in interpreting enhancements)
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (interpreting overlap between § 667 and § 667.5 enhancements)
- People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2004) (addresses limits on staying vs. striking § 667.5(b) enhancements)
- People v. Brewer, 225 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (recognizes staying an enhancement to preserve ability to impose if coextensive enhancement is later invalidated)
- People v. Scott, 58 Cal.4th 1415 (Cal. 2014) (judgment can include stayed/suspended sentences reflected in abstract)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (when part of sentence is stricken, full resentencing is appropriate)
- People v. Walker, 67 Cal.App.5th 198 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021) (invalidity of one sentence component can infect the entire aggregate sentence)
- People v. Monroe, 85 Cal.App.5th 393 (Cal. Ct. App. 2022) (defendant entitled to full resentencing even where enhancements were previously stricken)