People v. Mayberry
102 Cal.App.5th 665
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Darryn Mayberry was convicted of second-degree robbery in 2018 and admitted two prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- The sentencing court struck one strike prior, imposed a doubled upper term of 10 years, and stayed the two one-year prior prison term enhancements instead of striking them.
- Subsequent legislative changes (Senate Bills 136 and 483) limited § 667.5(b) enhancements to sexually violent offenses and rendered non-qualifying enhancements imposed before 2020 legally invalid.
- Section 1172.75 was enacted to retroactively apply these changes, mandating resentencing for judgments including such enhancements.
- The trial court found Mayberry ineligible for resentencing because the enhancements were stayed, reasoning the sentence was final and any error was unreviewable at this stage.
- Mayberry appealed, arguing the statute applied to stayed enhancements; the trial court disagreed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 1172.75 apply to stayed prior prison term enhancements? | Applies only where enhancement was imposed and executed, not stayed. | Applies to imposed enhancements even if stayed; trial court must recall and resentence. | Yes, the statute applies to stayed enhancements. |
| Does the trial court have jurisdiction to resentence under § 1172.75 despite a final sentence? | No jurisdiction because the error was not timely appealed and the sentence is final. | Statute creates an express exception allowing resentencing regardless of finality. | Section 1172.75 statutorily confers jurisdiction for resentencing. |
| Must resentencing under § 1172.75 yield a lesser sentence? | Only applies if eliminating the enhancement reduces time actually served. | Eliminating stayed enhancements still results in a "lesser sentence" for statutory purposes. | Striking stayed enhancements meets the statutory "lesser sentence" mandate. |
| Did imposition and stay of enhancements have a legal effect? | Stayed enhancements have no impact; not part of the sentence. | Stayed enhancements remain part of the judgment and can impact resentencing. | Stayed enhancements are part of the sentence and must be addressed. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2004) (holding that prior prison term enhancements must be either imposed or stricken—not stayed)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (interpreting the effect of staying enhancements in sentencing)
- People v. Brewer, 225 Cal.App.4th 98 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014) (authorizing stays of enhancements under certain circumstances)