People v. Vargas CA4/3, G063553

Ray Anthony Vargas was convicted in 2000 of attempted murder with various enhancements, including a one-year enhancement for a prior prison term under former Penal Code section 667.5(b), which the trial court stayed.
In 2023, Vargas petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code sections 1172.7 and 1172.75, provisions that retroactively eliminate certain enhancements based on prior prison terms.
The trial court denied Vargas’s petition, holding that defendants whose enhancements were stayed, rather than imposed and executed, are not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75.
The trial court relied on People v. Rhodius for its decision, making reference to related arguments and records in other Orange County cases.
Vargas appealed the decision, arguing for a broader interpretation of section 1172.75 that would allow resentencing for stayed enhancements.
The appellate court faced a split in authority among California appellate courts on whether section 1172.75 applies to both stayed and executed enhancements.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Penal Code section 1172.75 allow resentencing for enhancements imposed but stayed?	The statute only permits relief if the enhancement was imposed and executed; a stayed enhancement does not qualify.	The plain language of section 1172.75 provides relief for any enhancements imposed prior to Jan. 1, 2020, regardless of whether they were stayed or executed.	Yes, section 1172.75 applies to stayed enhancements, entitling Vargas to a resentencing hearing.

People v. Rhodius, 97 Cal.App.5th 38 (prior prison term enhancements that were stayed do not qualify for resentencing under section 1172.75)
People v. Christianson, 97 Cal.App.5th 300 (resentencing is required for stayed prior prison term enhancements under section 1172.75)