{"id":135,"date":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=135"},"modified":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-13T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-washington-b337590-section-1172-75-parole-eligibility","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=135","title":{"rendered":"People v. Washington \u2014 Inmate Released on Parole Before Resentencing Still Eligible for Section 1172.75 Relief"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. Washington<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
2nd District Court of Appeal, Division One<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-13<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
B337590<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Resentencing, Penal Code section 1172.75, Section 667.5(b) Enhancements, Parole<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Daquon Ray Washington pleaded no contest in 2019 to first-degree burglary and grand theft of an automobile and admitted prior jail terms supporting two one-year enhancements under former Penal Code section 667.5(b). The trial court imposed but stayed those enhancements, sentencing him to eight years in prison.<\/p>\n

In 2021, the Legislature enacted Penal Code section 1172.75 (initially codified as section 1171.1), which declares all pre-2020 section 667.5(b) prior-prison-term enhancements ‘legally invalid’ (other than those for sexually violent offenses) and creates a CDCR-driven process for identifying and resentencing affected inmates. CDCR identified Washington as eligible. By the time the trial court took up his resentencing, however, Washington had been released on parole. The trial court concluded he was no longer eligible because he was no longer ‘currently serving’ a prison term and denied resentencing.<\/p>\n

Washington appealed.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for resentencing. The court held that section 1172.75’s incarceration requirement applies only at the front end of the process: CDCR must identify those ‘currently serving’ a sentence including an invalid section 667.5(b) enhancement. Once an eligible inmate is identified, the statute does not require continued incarceration through the resentencing hearing.<\/p>\n

That reading is consistent with the statute’s purpose \u2014 to undo enhancements the Legislature has decided should never have been imposed \u2014 and with the practical reality that CDCR processing and court calendars often delay resentencing for months. Reading the statute to extinguish eligibility upon release would arbitrarily deprive many qualifying defendants of relief based on the timing of their parole grants.<\/p>\n

The court also rejected the argument that resentencing a paroled defendant is a hollow exercise. Striking the invalid enhancement can shorten the parole term itself and may affect collateral consequences such as future enhancement exposure. The case returns to the trial court for a full resentencing.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n