In People v. Rhodius, the Supreme Court yesterday allowed more defendants to take advantage of a statute retroactively eliminating most sentence enhancements imposed for prior prison terms.
The court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Leondra Kruger says the statute (Penal Code section 1172.75), which generally requires resentencing for those “currently serving a term for a judgment that includes [a since-eliminated] enhancement” that was “imposed,” applies even if the enhancement was imposed but then stayed. The enhancement need not have been both imposed and executed. The interpretation is significant because the stay of an enhancement can be lifted under certain circumstances.
The court concluded that, in enacting the statute, “the Legislature was motivated in large part by a purpose of reducing incarceration and thereby reducing public prison expenditures and overcrowding.”
The court reverses the Fourth District, Division Two, published opinion, which disagreed with the Sixth District’s decision in People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 and which was disagreed with by the Fourth District, Division One, in People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300, the Third District in People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270, the Fifth District in People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665, and the First District, Division Two, in People v. Bravo (2025) 107 Cal.App.5th 1144
There was no petition for review in Renteria or Bravo. Christianson, Saldana, and Mayberry are grant-and-holds for Rhodius. There are many other Rhodius grant-and-holds (just search for “Rhodius” in this blog), most of which were decided in unpublished opinions.
