Full Opinion

Filed 10/22/26 P. v. Reed CA4/2 Opinion following transfer from Supreme Court NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, E083073 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1300690) GUY DAVID REED, OPINION Defendant and Appellant. APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Reversed with directions. Brad J. Poore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Assistant Attorney General, A. Natasha Cortina, Alan L. Amann, and Anne M. Spitzberg, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. 1 Guy David Reed appeals from the trial court’s order denying him relief under Penal Code section 1172.75. (Unlabeled statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Reed argues that section 1172.75 applies to defendants who had their punishment struck on a prior prison term sentencing enhancement. In a prior unpublished opinion, we disagreed and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted review and has now transferred the case back to us with directions to vacate our prior opinion and reconsider the matter in light of People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57 (Espino). Having done so, we now reverse. BACKGROUND In 2013, a jury convicted Reed of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)), battery causing serious bodily injury (§ 243, subd. (d)), and criminal threats (§ 422). The jury also found that Reed inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)). Reed admitted that he had three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), and one prior serious and violent felony strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1)). The trial court sentenced Reed to 16 years in state prison and imposed the three prior prison term enhancements but struck the punishment for each of them. In 2022, the trial court received notice from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that Reed was serving a term for a judgment that 2 included prior prison term enhancements that are now invalid under section 1172.75.1 In December 2023, the court held a hearing and declined to resentence Reed, finding that he was not eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. DISCUSSION Reed argues that section 1172.75 applies to defendants who had the punishment struck on their prior prison term enhancements. The People now concede the point, and we agree. The Supreme Court so held in Espino. Section 1172.75, subdivision (a), provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.” Section 1172.75, subdivision (b), requires the Secretary of CDCR and the administrators for each county jail to “identify those persons in their custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a)” and to provide certain information about those individuals “to the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.” Upon receiving that information, the trial court “shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant” if the court “determines that the current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a).” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) If the court determines that the individual’s judgment 1 Reed filed a request for judicial notice on July 17, 2024. We grant that request and take judicial notice of the declarations of Aimee Vierra and David McKinney filed in case No. E082642, and we augment the record in this case to include the CDCR list dated June 16, 2022, listing individuals eligible for relief under section 1172.75. Reed is listed on page 27 of that document. 3 includes such an enhancement, the defendant’s resentencing “shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) In Espino, the Supreme Court held that section 1172.75 applies to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but as to which the punishment was struck. (Espino, supra, 20 Cal.5th at p. 60.) Because section 1172.75 applies to Reed’s prior prison term enhancements, he is entitled to resentencing under subdivision (d) of the statute. DISPOSITION The trial court’s order finding Reed ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 is reversed. The trial court is directed to strike Reed’s prior prison term enhancements and resentence him pursuant to subdivision (d) of section 1172.75. NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS MENETREZ J. We concur: RAMIREZ P. J. MILLER J. 4