People v. Lopez CA4/3, G063435

Michael Anthony Lopez was convicted in 1997 of multiple felonies, including robbery, commercial burglary, firearm possession, and street terrorism, with the trial court finding a prior prison term ("prison prior") enhancement true.
The prison prior enhancement under former Penal Code section 667.5(b) was imposed but stayed at sentencing.
In 2023, Lopez filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, after legislative changes invalidated such enhancements imposed before January 1, 2020.
The trial court denied the petition, holding Lopez was ineligible for relief because the enhancement was stayed, not executed.
Lopez appealed, arguing entitlement to resentencing regardless of whether the prison prior enhancement was stayed or executed.
The Court of Appeal reversed, finding Lopez eligible for relief, and remanded for resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to resentencing under § 1172.75 when the prison prior was imposed but stayed	Only defendants whose prison priors were imposed and executed are eligible; "imposed" means "imposed and executed"	"Imposed" covers both executed and stayed enhancements; the statute's plain language grants relief regardless of execution	Defendants are entitled to resentencing under § 1172.75 regardless of whether the prison prior was stayed, stricken, or executed
Legislative intent of § 1172.75 regarding stayed enhancements	Legislature sought limited relief; intent was not to encompass stayed enhancements	Legislative intent is to provide broad relief, eliminate invalid enhancements, and address sentencing disparities	Legislature intended broad relief; stayed/stricken/ executed enhancements are all included
Whether removal of a stayed enhancement results in a "lesser sentence"	Only executed terms reduce a sentence; staying an enhancement means it plays no role	Removing a stayed enhancement still lessens possible future punishment; potential revival eliminated	Yes, removal of stayed enhancement results in a lesser sentence under § 1172.75
Ambiguity of the term "imposed" in the statute	"Imposed" should be limited to imposed and executed enhancements	"Imposed" is unambiguous; inclusive of stayed or stricken enhancements	Statute is not ambiguous; rule of lenity favors resentencing if ambiguity exists

People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (distinguished between imposed and executed vs. imposed and stayed enhancements, but intent here is broader relief)
People v. Lopez, 119 Cal.App.4th 355 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (discussed revival of stayed enhancements at resentencing)
People v. Padilla, 13 Cal.5th 152 (Cal. 2022) (resentencing courts apply current law to vacated sentences)
People v. Garner, 244 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (on reimposing enhancements at resentencing)