section 667.5(b) enhancement in California

2026In re Rodriguez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 952 , 964, illustrates a section 667.5(b) enhancement imposed in a prior conviction being “inclu[ded] in 6 an aggregate term of imprisonment following a later criminal proceeding.” (See also People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 306-307, 315 [entire sentence subject to resentencing where the defendant had two determinate sentences].) Where, as here, a defendant’s later conviction is punishable by an indeterminate term, section 1170.1’s rules do not apply.

2026(People v. Christianson (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 300 , 310.) Section 1172.75 provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense . . . is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) Section 1172.75, subdivision (b), instructs the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) or county correctional administrator to “ ‘identify those persons in [its] custody currently serving a term . . . that includes an enhancement

2023At the time, the trial court stayed four prior prison term enhancements found true under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).1 1 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 Defendant appealed, and we affirmed the judgment in People v. Saldana (Jan. 8, 2015, C074302) (nonpub. opn.).2 Nearly a decade later, defense counsel moved to strike the four prior prison term enhancements under section 1172.75 and requested a full resentencing under People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857 .

2023As a consequence, under Buycks “‘a full resentencing as to all counts [was] appropriate, so the trial court 3 In Buycks, supra, 5 Cal.5th 857 the Supreme Court held the mandate of Proposition 47 (the Safe Neighborhoods and Schools Act) that a felony reclassified or redesignated as a misdemeanor be considered a misdemeanor for all purposes permitted a defendant to challenge felony-based section 667.5 enhancements in a nonfinal judgment when the underlying felonies had been subsequently redesignated as misdemeanors.

2026Section 1172.75 “Before January 1, 2020, section 667.5, subdivision (b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. [Citation.] Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) . . . amended section 667.5 by limiting the enhancement to only prior prison terms served for sexually violent offenses. [Citation.] Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally invalid. [Citation.]”

2025If the court determines that the current 4 judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a), the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (Id., subd. (c).) “[S]ection 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393 , 402; § 1172.75, subd. (d).) Wyatt asserts that the allegations that he served prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b) in connection with a conviction for armed robbery and a separate conviction for armed robb

2025Jones concludes with a direction to the trial court, without discussion, to strike the [former] section 667.5(b) enhancement.” (Couzens et al, Sentencing California Crimes (The Rutter Group 2024) § 12:12, citing Jones, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1153 ; People v. Johnson (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 188, 209 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105 .) However, “it is not at all clear whether the court [in Jones] intended to strike the enhancement finding or the punishment for the enhancement.” (People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364 , original italics; Cal Rules o

2025Jones concludes with a direction to the trial court, without discussion, to strike the [former] section 667.5(b) enhancement.” (Couzens et al, Sentencing California Crimes (The Rutter Group 2024) § 12:12, citing Jones, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1153 ; People v. Johnson (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 188, 209 , disapproved on another ground in People v. Acosta (2002) 29 Cal.4th 105 .) However, “it is not at all clear whether the court [in Jones] intended to strike the enhancement finding or the punishment for the enhancement.” (People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364 , original italics; Cal Rules o

2025Effective as of January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 [citation] amend[ed] section 667.5[(b)] to limit its prior prison term enhancement to only prior prison terms for sexually violent offenses, as defined in Welfare and Institutions Code section 6600, subdivision (b).” (People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664 , 681.) “In 2021, the Legislature created a mechanism for providing retroactive relief to persons serving a term for a judgment that includes an enhancement under section 667.5(b) that has since been eliminated. [Citations.] Specifically, ‘Senate Bill No. 483 added section 1171.1 to

2025(Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; People v. Jennings, supra, at p. 681.) It is undisputed that Fuller’s section 667.5(b) enhancements did not involve sexually violent offenses.

2025To interpret ‘imposed’ as used in section 1172.75, subdivision (a), to include when a sentence was ‘imposed and stayed’ would require any sentencing court faced with an ‘imposed and stayed’ enhancement to arbitrarily lower a sentence simply because the judgment contained a stayed enhancement.” (Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at pp. 43-44; but see People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188 , 203, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, 8 S286987, (dis. opn. of Lie, J.) [“So the concept of a sentence enhancement being ‘imposed’ when its punishment was stricken is not one I claim to comprehend.”]; contra,

2025To interpret ‘imposed’ as used in section 1172.75, subdivision (a), to include when a sentence was ‘imposed and stayed’ would require any sentencing court faced with an ‘imposed and stayed’ enhancement to arbitrarily lower a sentence simply because the judgment contained a stayed enhancement.” (Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 44; but see People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188 , 203, review granted Oct. 23, 2024, S286987 (dis. opn. of Lie, J.) [“So the concept of a sentence enhancement being ‘imposed’ when its punishment was stricken is not one I claim to comprehend.”]; contra, Renter

2026(Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3; Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12.) Section 1172.75 codified Senate Bill 483, stating that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision (b) of [s]ection 667.5, except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction for a sexually violent offense … is legally invalid.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) It places the duty on CDCR to identify persons in its custody who are currently serving a prison term that includes a now-invalid section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement and notify the sentencing court that imposed the enhancement.

2026(People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838 , 849 (Guevara); People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1058.) Through newly enacted section 1172.75, defendants with section 667.5(b) enhancements could seek resentencing.

2025(See People v. Murphy (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 713 , 733 [Court of Appeal may direct the trial court to correct errors in the abstract of judgment]; People v. Jones (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 1 , 13 [Court of Appeal may order “appropriate correction of the abstract of judgment”].) Oct. 23, 2024, S286987; but see People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38 [section 1172.75 applies only where an enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), was imposed and executed], review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283169.) Dworniczak does not challenge any other aspect of the superior court’s ruling on his pet

2024(See, e.g., People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665 [section 1172.75 applies to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed and stayed], review granted Aug. 14, 2024, S285853; People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270 [same], review granted Mar. 12, 2024, S283547; Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th 300 [same], review granted; see also People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188 [section 1172.75 applies to prior prison term enhancements that were imposed and stricken]; but see People v. Rhodius, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th 38 [section 1172.75 applies only where an enhancement under sec

2025(People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665 , 676, review granted Aug. 14, 2024, S285853.) Thus, defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing hearing because he was not serving time for a Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, time on the enhancement could now never be imposed, and striking the enhancement would not result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed.

2025(People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665 , 676, review granted Aug. 14, 2024, S285853.) Thus, defendant was not entitled to a full resentencing hearing because he was not serving time for a Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, time on the enhancement could now never be imposed, and striking the enhancement would not result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed.

2026Section 1172.75 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.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) The CDCR must notify the trial court of any person serving a prison term that includes a section 667.5 enhancement. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).) Once the trial court verifies the current judgment includes the enhancement, “the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) When

2025(Christianson, at pp. 311–314, review granted; see People v. Mayberry (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 665 , 673–676, review granted Aug. 14, 2024, S285853 [Fifth District]; People v. Saldana (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1270 , 1272–1273, review granted Mar. 12, 4 2024, S283547 [Third District]; People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1281– 1283 [Sixth District].) Christianson held that because stayed sentence enhancements could potentially increase the sentence if the case were reversed on appeal or if there was a recall of sentence, removal of the stayed enhancement could provide sentencing relief by

2026(Stats. 1976, ch. 1139, § 268, p. 5138, as amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 442; see People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241 .)” (People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 , 1054 (Rhodius).) “In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 136), which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all 7 prior crimes except for ‘sexually violent offense[s] as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.’ (Stats

2025(Stats. 1976, ch. 1139, § 268, p. 5138, as amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 15, § 442, p. 458; see People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237, 1241 (Langston).) In 2019, in an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature passed Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill No. 136), which amended section 667.5(b) to eliminate prior-prison-term enhancements for all prior crimes except for “sexually violent offense[s] as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.” (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1.) In 2021, Senate Bill No.

2026(Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1; People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375 , 379-380.) Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) made the changes by 3 invalid prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5, subdivision (b), the court appointed counsel to represent him on the resentencing proceedings.

2025(People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375 , 382 [appellant prematurely moved for relief under § 1172.75, trial court denied the motion, and the appellate court dismissed the appeal as one taken from an order not affecting substantial rights].) Here, however, the court seemingly granted the motion in part (by purporting to “dismiss[]” the § 667.5, subd. (b) enhancements) and denied the motion in part (by not providing a full resentencing hearing to defendant pursuant to § 1172.75, subd. (d)).

2025The statute authorizes recall and resentencing only “[i]f” the superior court in which the defendant was sentenced “determines that the [defendant’s] current judgment includes an enhancement described in subdivision (a),” i.e., a prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b), for an offense other than a sexually violent one. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c), italics added; see id., subd. (b) [specifying sentencing court as recall and resentencing venue].) In reviewing statutory language, absent ambiguity, “[t]he statute’s plain meaning controls.” (People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th

2025Even though Rhodius’s section 667.5(b) enhancement was unquestionably “imposed” within the ordinary meaning of that term, we have also recognized that the word “ ‘impose’ ” is sometimes “ ‘employed as shorthand’ ” in sentencing laws to refer to the class of enhancements that are “imposed and then executed.” (Gonzalez, supra, 43 Cal.4th at p. 1125 , quoting People v. Bracamonte (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th 704, 711 .) Determining whether the Legislature has used the term “impose” in this “shorthand” manner requires an analysis of the context in which the term appears.

2022(People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337 , 341–342, citing In re Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 742–748.) Here, the trial court imposed five 1-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements for the following convictions: (1) attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); (2) possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf.

2022(See In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 ; cf. People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337 , 342 [amendments to § 667.5, subd. (b) enhancements apply retroactively].) We express no opinion how that discretion should be exercised.

2026(People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276 , 1282.) Someone serving a sentence that includes a now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement is eligible for possible resentencing.

2025The resentencing must “result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(1).) “The reference to a ‘lesser’ sentence is reasonably understood to mean . . . the new sentence must eliminate the adverse effects flowing from the now-invalid section 667.5[, subdivision] (b) enhancements.” (People v. Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1062.) The superior court, however, can decline to dismiss an enhancement under section 667.5, former subdivision (b), when the court “finds by clear and convincing evidence that

2023However, defendant cited People v. Tenner (1993) 6 Cal.4th 559 , which set forth the requirements for imposition of a sentence enhancement under Penal Code section 667.5, including proof of defendant’s completion of a prior prison term.

2018Thus, in describing the elements required for the imposition of a section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement, we have stated it “requires proof that the defendant: (1) was previously convicted of a felony; (2) was imprisoned as a result of that conviction; (3) completed that term of imprisonment; and (4) did not remain free for five years of both prison custody and the commission of a new offense resulting in a felony conviction.” (People v. Tenner (1993) 6 Cal.4th 559, 563 .) With this understanding, the resentencing of a prior underlying felony conviction to a misdemeanor conviction negates

2026Jan. 1, 2022.) That provision eliminated as legally invalid all section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior sentence enhancements that were imposed before January 1, 2020, except those involving a prison prior for specified sexually violent offenses. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a), (§ 1172.75(a)).) A defendant eligible for resentencing relief pursuant to section 1172.75 is entitled to a full resentencing hearing. (§ 1172.75, subd. (c); People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960 , 967–968.) In relevant part, section 1172.75 requires the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilit

2026Section 1172.75 “Before January 1, 2020, section 667.5, subdivision (b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. [Citation.] Effective January 1, 2020, Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) . . . amended section 667.5 by limiting the enhancement to only prior prison terms served for sexually violent offenses. [Citation.] Enhancements based on prior prison terms served for other offenses became legally invalid. [Citation.]”

2016(People v. Gonzales (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1607, 1610 [striking the enhancement]; People v. Harris (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 1575, 1585 [same]; People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1562 [same]; People v. Nichols (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1651, 1659 [striking the enhancement after concession]; People v. Solis (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1002, 1021 [same]; People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801, 805 [same].) Despite those authorities, the Attorney General urges us to follow the reasoning of People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Gonzalez) and People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355 (Lopez),

2015(See People v. Jones (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1142, 1153 [trial court cannot impose both prior prison term enhancement and prior serious felony conviction enhancement based on same underlying prior conviction]; accord People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801, 805 [trial court should have stricken the section 667.5 enhancement term].) We will vacate the one-year enhancement term imposed under section 667.5, subdivision (b). 24 DISPOSITION The one-year prison term imposed under section 667.5 is vacated.

2022(People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337 , 341–342, citing In re Estrada, supra, 63 Cal.2d at pp. 742–748.) Here, the trial court imposed five 1-year section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements for the following convictions: (1) attempted murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a)); (2) possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf.

2022(Accord, People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337 , 340-342 [Senate Bill 136 applies retroactively to cases not yet final on appeal]; People v. Jennings (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 664 , 680-682 [same].) Accordingly, the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements must be stricken.

2026(People v. Mitchell, supra, 26 Cal.4th at p. 185 .) The first clerical error relates to the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison enhancement.

2026“Courts may correct clerical errors at any time . . . .” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 .) 7 Section 1465.9, subdivision (b) provides, “On and after January 1, 2022, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to Section 1001.15, 1001.16, 1001.90, 1202.4, 1203.1, 1203.1ab, 1203.1c, 1203.1m, 1203.4a, 1203.9, 1205, 1214.5, 2085.5, 2085.6, or 2085.7, as those sections read on December 31, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” Because the abstract of judgment incorrectly lists eight of defendant’s pr

2015(People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 386, 390, 401 .) It is clear from the trial court’s sentencing comments the trial court intended appellant to serve a total of 18 years 4 months in prison, and based on sentence components other than the three section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements.

2014Once the prior prison term is found true within the meaning of section 667.5(b), the trial court may not stay the one-year enhancement, which is mandatory unless stricken. [Citations.]” (People v. Langston, supra, 33 Cal.4th at p. 1241 .) “If a trial judge exercises the power to strike pursuant to [Penal Code] section 1385, subdivision (a), the reasons for the exercise of discretion must be set forth in writing in the minutes.” (People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 386, 391 ; accord People v. Jordan (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 349, 368-369 .) 3 The failure to impose or strike an enhancement unde

2019At sentencing, “the trial court was required to impose the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements or strike them in whole or in part pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (a).” (People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1561 .) The parties agree the court made no explicit findings on the prior prison term enhancement allegations.

2019At sentencing, “the trial court was required to impose the section 667.5, subdivision (b) prior prison term enhancements or strike them in whole or in part pursuant to section 1385, subdivision (a).” (People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1561 .) The parties agree the court made no explicit findings on the prior prison term enhancement allegations.

2017In other words, does the Act operate retroactively?” (Johnson, supra, at p. 119 .) After examining the presumption of prospective operation contained in section 3, the qualification to this presumption set forth in In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740 [ 48 Cal.Rptr. 172 , 408 P.2d 948 ], voters’ intent in enacting Proposition 47, and the purpose of an enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b)—to punish recidivists who have shown they are undeterred by fear of prison (In re Preston (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th *862 1109, 1115 [ 98 Cal.Rptr.3d 340 ]; People v. Gokey (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 932, 936

2016Subdivision (d) of section 667.5, on the other hand, relates to the fourth prong of determining whether a prior prison term enhancement applies. ( In re Kelly (1983) 33 Cal.3d 267 , 274, 188 Cal.Rptr. 447 , 655 P.2d 1282 , overruled on other grounds by People v. Langston (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1237 , 1246, 17 Cal.Rptr.3d 596 , 95 P.3d 865 .) It is an exemption to imposition of the enhancement commonly referred to as the "wash out period." ( People v. Humphrey (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 809 , 813, 68 Cal.Rptr.2d 269 .) Under the exemption, a defendant who has served a prison prior within the meaning of s

2018However, "sections 667, subdivision (a) and 667.5 have the same purpose-increasing the duration of prison terms for recidivists." ( People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550 , 1561, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 155 [applying reasoning in Williams to find that § 667.5 enhancement may be applied separately to each indeterminate sentence]; see also People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145 , 156, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 , 906 P.2d 1232 ["Prior prison term enhancements, such as those authorized by [§] 667.5[, subd.] (b), ... are attributable to the defendant's status as a repeat offender"].) Moreover, imposition of

2018However, "sections 667, subdivision (a) and 667.5 have the same purpose-increasing the duration of prison terms for recidivists." ( People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550 , 1561, 85 Cal.Rptr.3d 155 [applying reasoning in Williams to find that § 667.5 enhancement may be applied separately to each indeterminate sentence]; see also People v. Coronado (1995) 12 Cal.4th 145 , 156, 48 Cal.Rptr.2d 77 , 906 P.2d 1232 ["Prior prison term enhancements, such as those authorized by [§] 667.5[, subd.] (b), ... are attributable to the defendant's status as a repeat offender"].) Moreover, imposition of

2018(The § 667.5, subd. (b) enhancement was the only one at issue before the Supreme Court.) ( Prather, supra , 50 Cal.3d at pp. 431-432, 267 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 787 P.2d 1012 .) Prather argued that the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement fell under the statutory prohibition on exceeding double the base term-and not under the constitutional provision mandating use of any prior felony for enhancement purposes without limitation-because a prior prison term enhancement increases punishment based on service of a prior prison term, not on a conviction for a prior felony. ( Prather, supra , 50 Cal.3d

2018(The § 667.5, subd. (b) enhancement was the only one at issue before the Supreme Court.) ( Prather, supra , 50 Cal.3d at pp. 431-432, 267 Cal.Rptr. 605 , 787 P.2d 1012 .) Prather argued that the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement fell under the statutory prohibition on exceeding double the base term-and not under the constitutional provision mandating use of any prior felony for enhancement purposes without limitation-because a prior prison term enhancement increases punishment based on service of a prior prison term, not on a conviction for a prior felony. ( Prather, supra , 50 Cal.3d

2025(See, e.g., Brewer, supra, 225 Cal.App.4th at pp. 104-105 [ordering stay of § 667.5(b) enhancements where trial court imposed sentence for § 667.5(a) enhancements based on same prison terms]; see also, e.g., In re W.B. (2012) 55 Cal.4th 30, 57 [“[T]he Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it enacts or amends a statute”].) It was also presumably aware that courts had already applied Senate Bill No. 136’s reform of section 667.5(b) “retroactively to all cases not yet final on January 1, 2020” (Christianson, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th at p. 309, italics added), including in case

2014(People v. Jones, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 1153 ; People v. Perez, supra, 195 Cal.App.4th at p. 805 ; People v. Harris, supra, 22 Cal.App.4th at p. 1585 ; but see People v Brewer (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 98, 102-107 [impose and stay]; People v. Walker (2006) 139 Cal.App.4th 782, 794, fn. 9 [impose and stay]; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.447.) 5.