People v. Whitley CA4/3, G063809

Jaquan Donta Whitley pled guilty to several felonies in 2018, admitting three prior prison term enhancements under former Penal Code § 667.5(b), which the trial court struck for purpose of sentencing.
In 2023, Whitley filed a petition for recall and resentencing under Penal Code §§ 1172.7 and 1172.75, based on legislative changes rendering these enhancements legally invalid unless based on prior sexually violent offenses.
The trial court denied the petition, reasoning Whitley was ineligible for relief as the enhancements were stricken at sentencing, not imposed.
The ruling was appealed, with Whitley contending he was still entitled to resentencing because the judgment included the now-invalid enhancements.
The appellate court noted a split of authority on whether stricken or stayed enhancements qualify for resentencing under § 1172.75 and undertook a de novo review of statutory interpretation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for resentencing under § 1172.75 when enhancements were stricken at sentencing	Not eligible; enhancements were stayed or dismissed, so not subject to resentencing	Eligible; judgment includes admitted, now-invalid enhancements, and statute does not limit relief to only imposed enhancements	Eligible; stricken enhancements remain part of the judgment for purposes of resentencing under § 1172.75

People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (primary authority on statutory interpretation standards in California)
People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (statutory language given usual and ordinary meaning)
Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) (framework for discerning legislative intent in statutory construction)
People v. Garner, 244 Cal.App.4th 1113 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (stricken enhancements can be revived upon resentencing consideration)