People v. Lee CA4/2

Opinion

Filed 7/1/25 P. v. Lee CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E082981

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF091287)

HAROLD EUGENE LEE, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Reversed with directions.

Sylvia W. Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant

and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal and Arlyn

Escalante, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

1 In November 2001, Harold Eugene Lee was convicted by a jury of robbery (Pen.

Code, § 211; unlabeled statutory citations are to this code) and unlawful possession of a

firearm (§ 12021.1), and the jury found that he personally used a firearm in the

commission of the robbery (§ 12022.53, subd (b)). The trial court found that Lee had two

prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and had served a prior prison term (§

667.5, subd. (b)).

In February 2002, the court sentenced Lee to a term of 25 years to life for the

robbery count and a consecutive 10 years for the firearm enhancement, and the court

stayed a term of 25 years to life for the unlawful possession count. The court also

imposed an additional five years for each of the prior serious felony convictions and

imposed but stayed the additional one year for the prior prison term.

In 2022, the trial court received notice from the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) that Lee was serving a term for a judgment that

included a prior prison term enhancement that is now invalid under section 1172.75. In

December 2023, at a hearing that was conducted off the record but with counsel for both

parties present, the court declined to resentence Lee, finding that he was not eligible for

resentencing under section 1172.75.

On appeal, Lee argues that section 1172.75 applies to defendants who have prior

prison term enhancements that were imposed but stayed. We agree. The California

Supreme Court so held in People v. Rhodius (June 26, 2025, S283169) __ Cal.5th __.

2 DISPOSITION

The trial court’s order denying relief under section 1172.75 is reversed. The

matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to recall Lee’s sentence and

resentence him under section 1172.75, subdivision (d).

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

We concur:

RAMIREZ P. J.

MILLER J.