Filed 10/29/26 P. v. Becker 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ord ered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082914
v. (Super.Ct.No. HEF970137)
RODNEY LEE BECKER, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.
Reversed and remanded with instructions.
Cindi B. Mishkin, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
1
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher Beesley and
Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This appeal is before us for the second time. In our first opinion we affirmed the
order of the Riverside County Superior Court finding defendant and appellant Rodney
Lee Becker ineligible for Penal Code section 1172.75 resentencing relief.1 (People v.
Becker (May 21, 2025, E082914) [nonpub. opn.] (Becker I).)
The California Supreme Court granted defendant's petition for review and deferred
his case pending consideration and disposition of People v. Espino, which was awaiting
decision by that court in its case No. S286987. After issuing its opinion in that case
(People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57 (Espino)), the Supreme Court transferred
defendant’s matter back to this court with directions to vacate our opinion in Becker I,
and to reconsider the cause in light of Espino.
In keeping with the Supreme Court’s instructions, we vacated our opinion in
Becker I, and invited the parties to file supplemental briefs, which they have not done.
We will reverse the trial court’s decision finding defendant ineligible for resentencing
relief and remand the matter with instructions that defendant be afforded a section
1172.75 resentencing hearing.
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
In 1998, defendant was sentenced to a term of 25 years to life for possession of
methamphetamine in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11377 and for a prior
strike (§§ 667, subds. (c), (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)). The trial court imposed and struck two
prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
The Statutory Backdrop
In 2019, the Legislature amended subdivision (b) of section 667.5 (amended
§ 667.5(b)) to eliminate prior prison term enhancements unless the prior prison term was
for specific sexually violent offenses. (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 2020.) The
amendment was retroactive as to any case in which the judgment was not final on
January 1, 2020. (People v. Lopez (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 337, 341-342.)
In 2022, section 1172.75 became effective.2 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3, eff. Jan. 1,
2022.) Subdivision (a) of that provision declares legally invalid any prison prior sentence
enhancement defined in amended section 667.5(b) that was imposed prior to January 1,
2020 (often referred to herein as a qualifying prison prior). (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) To
ensure defendants serving sentences that include a qualifying prison prior would receive
timely relief, section 1172.75 directed the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify persons serving sentences that include a qualifying
prison prior and provide those persons’ names, birthdates, and docket numbers to the
2 At the time of its enactment in January 2021, section 1172.75 was numbered
section 1171.1, but was renumbered effective June 30, 2022, with no substantive
changes to the statute (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12).
3
sentencing court, which would in turn determine whether the person was entitled to
section 1172.75 resentencing relief. (§ 1172.75, subds. (b) & (c).) Those tasks were to
be accomplished within the time limits set forth in the statute. (§ 1172.75, subds. (b) &
(c).)
Following the passage of section 1172.75, a dispute arose in the courts of appeal
with respect to whether the word “imposed” in subdivision (a) was intended to limit the
provision’s resentencing relief to defendants whose qualifying prison prior was imposed
and executed, or if resentencing was also available in cases like the present one in which
the sentence was imposed but stricken. This court held “imposed” meant “imposed and
executed.” (People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, 45 (Rhodius I), reversed at
People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1068 (Rhodius II).)
Defendant’s Section 1172.75 Proceedings and Appeal
Defendant was included in CDCR’s list of persons sentenced in Riverside County
considered to be eligible for section 1172.75 resentencing relief and his matter was set for
a hearing.3 At the ensuing hearing, the trial court found defendant was ineligible for
resentencing and defendant appealed.
In Becker I, we adhered to our opinion in Rhodius I, supra, 97 Cal.App.5th 38 and
found defendant was not entitled to section 1172.75 resentencing relief because the
3 We granted defendant’s request to take judicial notice of the declarations of Aimee
Vierra and David McKinney, filed in case No. E082642, and the CDCR list attached to
those declarations. That list, dated June 16, 2022, sets forth the names of persons eligible
for relief under section 1172.75 in active cases for Riverside County. Defendant’s name
appears on page 20 of the list.
4
punishment for his prior priors had been stricken, not imposed and executed. As noted
ante, defendant’s petition for review by the California Supreme Court was granted and
his cause deferred pending that court’s decision in People v. Espino, supra, S286987.
The Supreme Court recently issued its opinion in Espino, which holds that a sentence is
“imposed” for the purposes of section 1172.75 even if the sentencing court struck the
punishment for the prison prior enhancement. (Espino, supra, 20 Cal.5th at p. 60.)
In keeping with Supreme Court’s order directing us to do so, we have reconsidered
defendant’s matter in light of Espino, supra, 20 Cal.5th 57 and find that, because
defendant’s sentence includes two qualifying prison priors that were imposed and
stricken, he is entitled to a section 1172.75, subdivision (d) resentencing hearing.
5
DISPOSITION
The trial court’s finding defendant ineligible for resentencing under section
1172.75 is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions to strike defendant’s
section 667.5, subdivision (b) prison prior enhancements in their entirety and to hold a
resentencing hearing in accordance with section 1172.75, subdivision (d). We express no
opinion on whether defendant would be entitled to any additional relief at the
resentencing hearing.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
P. J.
We concur:
McKINSTER
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
J.
MILLER
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________
J.
6