109 Cal.App.5th 1003
Cal. Ct. App.2025Background
- Kim H. Tang was convicted in 2001 of first-degree murder with several enhancements, including a prior prison term enhancement under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
- At original sentencing, the trial court imposed and stayed the one-year prior prison term enhancement.
- On direct appeal in 2002, the Court of Appeal modified the judgment to strike (not simply stay) the prior prison term enhancement.
- In 2023, Tang sought resentencing under Penal Code § 1172.75, which invalidates § 667.5(b) enhancements for non-sexually violent offenses imposed prior to January 1, 2020.
- The trial court denied Tang’s petition because the prior prison term enhancement had previously been stricken, meaning it was not “imposed” under § 1172.75.
- Tang appealed this ruling, arguing he was nonetheless eligible for relief under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does a stricken prison prior enhancement qualify as 'imposed' under § 1172.75? | Stricken enhancement was not imposed; statute does not apply | All defendants with such priors are eligible, even if stricken | Stricken enhancement is not 'imposed'; Tang is ineligible |
| Must the court issue an amended abstract of judgment to reflect the stricken enhancement? | Yes | Not at issue | Yes, amended abstract to reflect the strike is required |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (court must strike, not stay, certain enhancements—relevant precedent for treating previously imposed and stayed enhancements)
- People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (interpreting the meaning of "imposed" in the context of enhancements)
- People v. Fuentes, 1 Cal.5th 218 (Cal. 2016) (distinction between striking an enhancement and striking its punishment)