97 Cal.App.5th 1270
Cal. Ct. App.2023Background
- In 2013, Silverio Saldana was convicted for possession for sale of a controlled substance and sentenced to 25 years to life under California's three strikes law.
- The trial court imposed and stayed four one-year prior prison term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b), which was later recognized as an error because such enhancements must be either imposed or stricken, not stayed.
- Years later, Saldana sought to have these stayed enhancements stricken under Penal Code § 1172.75, a law retroactively invalidating certain prison term enhancements, and requested a full resentencing.
- The trial court struck the enhancements but denied a full resentencing, believing the statute did not apply to stayed (rather than imposed and executed) enhancements.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal decided that the defendant was entitled to a full resentencing, vacated the sentence, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether stayed enhancements are unauthorized | AG concedes the sentence was unauthorized | Saldana agrees the stays were legally improper | Yes, stayed enhancements were unauthorized |
| Does unauthorized status prevent full resentencing? | AG: The unauthorized status bars resentencing | Saldana: Stayed/illegal enhancements do not bar relief | No, full resentencing is still required |
| Statute's application to stayed enhancements | AG: § 1172.75 doesn't require full resentencing for stayed | Saldana: Statute applies equally to all enhancements | Statute applies; full resentencing required |
| Should "imposed" mean only executed enhancements? | AG: Only executed enhancements count for relief | Saldana: Stayed enhancements should be included | Stayed enhancements count as "imposed" |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Langston, 33 Cal.4th 1237 (Cal. 2004) (one-year prior prison term enhancements must be imposed or stricken, not stayed)
- People v. Gonzales, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) ("imposed" can, in some contexts, mean executed, but distinguished here)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (resentencing must be full if part of a sentence is stricken)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (remand for resentencing required when court is unaware of its discretionary powers)