People v. Degante CA4/3, G063563M

Jesse Degante was convicted in 2016 for attempted robbery and related enhancements, including two prior serious felony enhancements and a prior prison term enhancement under former Penal Code § 667.5(b).
At sentencing, the trial court imposed enhancements, including a one-year prior prison term enhancement, but that enhancement was reflected as imposed and stayed in the minutes and abstract, not in the oral pronouncement.
Degante petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code §§ 1172.7 and 1172.75, after the law rendered certain prior prison term enhancements legally invalid.
The Superior Court denied his petition, finding him ineligible because the enhancement had been stayed, not executed.
The core legal dispute is whether offenders are entitled to resentencing where the enhancement was stayed (or stricken), as opposed to imposed and executed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 1172.75 allow resentencing if enhancement was stayed?	Rhodius: Only applies if executed	Christianson: Applies if stayed	Court: Resentencing required even if stayed/stricken
Meaning of "imposed" under § 1172.75	Means imposed AND executed	Means imposed, even if stayed	"Imposed" includes stayed or stricken enhancements
Should the conflict between oral judgment/minute order control?	Abstract/minute order reflects reality	No remand needed; correction unnecessary	Remand for proper resentencing, oral pronouncement controls
Entitlement to a lesser sentence under § 1172.75(d)(1)	Not met because sentence isn't increased	Is met because stay can be lifted	Court agrees with broader application

People v. Delgado, 43 Cal.4th 1059 (abstract of judgment subordinate to oral pronouncement)
People v. Vizcarra, 236 Cal.App.4th 422 (failure to impose or strike enhancement is unauthorized sentence)
People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (statutory meaning of “impose[d]”)