Background
In 1998, Rodney Lee Becker was sentenced to 25 years to life for possession of methamphetamine under Health and Safety Code section 11377, with the sentence enhanced by a prior strike under the Three Strikes law. The trial court also imposed and struck two one-year prison term enhancements under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). In 2019, the Legislature amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior prison term enhancements except for certain sexually violent offenses, and in 2022 section 1172.75 became effective, declaring legally invalid any qualifying prison prior enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020, and directing the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to identify eligible persons for resentencing.
Becker appeared on CDCR's list of persons considered eligible for section 1172.75 relief in Riverside County, and his case was set for a hearing. The trial court found him ineligible because his prison prior enhancements had been stricken rather than imposed and executed, and Becker appealed. In its first opinion, the Court of Appeal affirmed, adhering to its earlier decision in People v. Rhodius, which had held that the word 'imposed' in section 1172.75, subdivision (a) meant 'imposed and executed.' The California Supreme Court granted Becker's petition for review and deferred the case pending its decision in People v. Espino, then transferred the matter back with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider in light of Espino.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal vacated its prior opinion and, after inviting supplemental briefing that the parties did not submit, reconsidered the case in light of People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57. The Supreme Court in Espino held that a sentence is 'imposed' for purposes of section 1172.75 even if the sentencing court struck the punishment for the prison prior enhancement. Applying that holding, the court found that because Becker's sentence includes two qualifying prison priors that were imposed and stricken, he is entitled to a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, subdivision (d).
The court reversed the trial court's finding of ineligibility and remanded with instructions to strike Becker's section 667.5(b) prison prior enhancements in their entirety and to hold a resentencing hearing in accordance with section 1172.75, subdivision (d). The court expressly stated that it expressed no opinion on whether Becker would be entitled to any additional relief at the resentencing hearing, leaving that question open for the trial court on remand.
Key Takeaways
- A prison prior enhancement that was imposed but stricken still counts as 'imposed' for purposes of Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing eligibility, following the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Espino.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court's finding that Becker was ineligible for resentencing and remanded with instructions to strike his two section 667.5(b) prison prior enhancements in their entirety.
- The case returned to the Court of Appeal after the Supreme Court granted review, deferred the matter pending Espino, and then transferred it back with directions to vacate the prior opinion and reconsider.
- The court left open whether Becker would be entitled to any additional relief at the resentencing hearing beyond striking the qualifying enhancements.
- The parties did not file supplemental briefs after the court invited them following the Supreme Court's transfer order.
Why It Matters
This opinion illustrates the downstream effect of the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Espino, which resolved a split in the courts of appeal over whether section 1172.75 relief extends to defendants whose prison prior enhancements were imposed but stricken. The decision confirms that defendants like Becker, whose enhancements were stricken rather than executed, are entitled to a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, subdivision (d).
The case also demonstrates the procedural path by which the Supreme Court's grant-and-hold practice operates: after deferring the case pending Espino, the court transferred it back with directions to vacate and reconsider, and the Court of Appeal followed those instructions without additional briefing. The remand leaves the scope of any further relief to the trial court's discretion at the resentencing hearing.