Possibly. Penal Code section 1172.75 provides relief for qualifying former one-year prior-prison-term enhancements imposed under section 667.5(b) before January 1, 2020. Its referral process concerns people in state or county custody currently serving a term for an affected judgment. Check the enhancement, current custody, statutory exceptions, and what referral or court review has occurred. A prior conviction or prison term alone does not establish eligibility, and the process does not guarantee release. (Penal Code § 1172.75; Penal Code § 667.5)
Identify the exact enhancement in the judgment
Get the charging document, plea or verdict, sentencing transcript, minute order, and abstract of judgment. Check whether the sentence includes a former one-year enhancement under section 667.5(b), rather than a strike prior or another enhancement. Current section 667.5(b) is limited to qualifying priors for defined sexually violent offenses. Section 1172.75 addresses the former subdivision (b) enhancements specified in its text.
Section 1172.75(a) treats the qualifying former enhancements as legally invalid, subject to its exception for an underlying prior conviction that qualifies as a sexually violent offense under the statute’s definition. Subdivision (f) has a separate exclusion beginning January 1, 2025: it applies to someone convicted of a defined sexually violent offense and sentenced to death or life without parole whose judgment had not been reviewed and verified under subdivision (c) as of that date. The exclusion does not apply retroactively. Counsel should check both provisions against the actual prior and judgment; one exception should not be assumed from the other. (Penal Code § 1172.75(a), (f))
Find out whether the case was referred and reviewed
The statute assigned CDCR and county correctional officials steps to identify qualifying judgments and refer them to the sentencing court for review. It also set court review dates in 2022 and 2023. Those were agency and court schedules, not a new personal deadline for filing a petition; they have passed. The practical question now is what happened in this case: whether the person was serving the affected term, whether a referral reached the sentencing court, whether the court verified the judgment, and whether it recalled the sentence or held a hearing. Ask counsel to check both the correctional record and the sentencing-court docket. (Penal Code § 1172.75(b)–(c))
If the court reaches resentencing under the statute, it must appoint counsel. The court may not impose a longer sentence. It must reduce the sentence unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that reducing it would endanger public safety. The parties may waive a resentencing hearing; if one is held remotely, the defendant must agree. Counsel should confirm the hearing and participation arrangements. Even a reduced term does not itself establish an immediate release date; other counts, custody calculations, holds, or sentence components may affect release. (Penal Code § 1172.75(d)–(e))
A stayed enhancement differs from one whose punishment was struck
The California Supreme Court has held that a stayed former section 667.5(b) enhancement may qualify under section 1172.75. People v. Rhodius explains the stayed-enhancement situation. In People v. Espino, the court addressed an enhancement that remained in the legally effective sentence even though its punishment had been struck. The court did not resolve every situation in which the enhancement itself was stricken. Those are different sentencing records, so do not assume that striking punishment and striking the enhancement have the same effect. (People v. Rhodius; People v. Espino)
Preserve the judgment, abstract, sentencing transcript, current custody information, and any CDCR or county notice or court order. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley represents people facing California criminal charges. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the record and referral history.