Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Lewis CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E086290
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1102889)
PAUL DIXON LEWIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,
Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Dixon Lewis, in pro. per.; and Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Defendant and appellant Paul Dixon Lewis appeals the order of the Riverside
County Superior Court denying his second Penal Code section 1172.75 petition.1 We will
affirm.
BACKGROUND2
Defendant is an inmate at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, serving a
49-year sentence imposed in 1990 for kidnapping and repeatedly raping and assaulting a
15-year-old girl and threatening to bomb her house if she reported what had happened.
1. Defendant Suffers Another Conviction While Incarcerated
In May 2011, correctional officers searched defendant and found in his underwear
a blue latex glove containing 13.2 grams of marijuana wrapped in 25 plastic bindles.
In June 2012, a jury convicted defendant of possessing a controlled substance in a
penal institution (§ 4573.6) and possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11359). The trial court found true that defendant had eight strike priors (§§ 667, subds.
(c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)) and one prison prior enhancement (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)). It denied defendant’s motion to strike seven of the strike priors and sentenced
him to a prison term of 25 years to life plus one year for the prison prior enhancement.
(Lewis II, supra, E080083.)
1 All statutory references herein are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 We have taken judicial notice on our own motion of the record and our opinion in defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his request for dismissal of his prior strike convictions, People v. Lewis (Mar. 13, 2024, E080083) [nonpub. opn.] (Lewis II). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
2 On appeal, we ordered modifications of the minute order and abstract of judgment
to correctly reflect the assessments and fees ordered, and to note on the abstract that
defendant’s conviction was by jury trial. We affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
(People v. Lewis (Dec. 19, 2013, E056993) [nonpub. opn.].)
2. Section 1172.75 Is Enacted
Section 1172.75 became effective in January 2022.3 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3,
(Sen. Bill No. 483), eff. Jan. 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 Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify persons in their
custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes a prison prior enhancement
coming within section 1172.75(a) and to provide the name of each person and other
specified identifying information to the sentencing court. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).)
Upon receiving names from CDCR, the sentencing court must review each
person’s current judgment to be sure it includes a section 1172.75(a) enhancement.
3 At the time of its enactment section 1172.75 was designated as section 1171.1. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) It was renumbered to section 1172.75, effective June 30, 2022, with no substantive changes to the statute (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12).
3 (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) If the court determines the current judgment includes the
enhancement, it must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. (Ibid.)
3. Defendant’s First Section 1172.75 Petition
In 2022, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing on account of his prison
prior. At the August 2022 section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the trial court struck the
prison prior enhancement and vacated the sentence that had been imposed on account of
it. It continued the hearing for consideration of defendant’s request that the court
exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1385 and Romero4 to eliminate his prior strikes.
It denied the request at the continued hearing. Defendant appealed and we affirmed.
4. Defendant’s Second Section 1172.75 Petition Resulting in This Appeal
Defendant filed a section 1172.75 petition in May 2025, nearly three years after
his prison prior enhancement had been stricken in accordance with that statute. In his
petition, defendant argued that his name should be on a list from CDCR, which he
asserted was in the trial court's possession. He asked the court to review his file to see if
he qualifies for relief, and invited the court “in furtherance of justice to strike or dismiss
his legally invalid enhancement(s) that were imposed prior to January 1, 2020.”
The trial court, apparently deeming defendant’s petition as coming under section 1172.1
(no doubt because defendant’s prison prior enhancement had already been stricken in
4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
4 accordance with section 1172.75), rejected it with the comment, “[r]ejected
1172.1[, subdivision] (c) … improper format.”5
Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets
forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication but
contains a request that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216. The brief also notes counsel considered whether the trial court erred
when it denied defendant’s petition to be resentenced, noting that section 1172.75’s
authorization for resentencing is limited to persons identified by CDCR and that
defendant has not been so identified and is not serving time for any enhancements
identified by section 1172.75 as eligible for relief.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed
a brief stating counsel had not found an arguable issue, that this court is not required to
conduct an independent review of the record but it may exercise its discretion to do so,
and we invited him to file any arguments he deemed necessary. In response, defendant
filed arguments stating that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. He
is mistaken. As noted ante, defendant has already been afforded the benefits of section
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Filed 4/24/26 P. v. Lewis 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, E086290
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1102889)
PAUL DIXON LEWIS, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Joshlyn R. Pulliam,
Judge. Affirmed.
Paul Dixon Lewis, in pro. per.; and Andrea S. Bitar, under appointment by the
Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1 Defendant and appellant Paul Dixon Lewis appeals the order of the Riverside
County Superior Court denying his second Penal Code section 1172.75 petition.1 We will
affirm.
BACKGROUND2
Defendant is an inmate at the California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, serving a
49-year sentence imposed in 1990 for kidnapping and repeatedly raping and assaulting a
15-year-old girl and threatening to bomb her house if she reported what had happened.
1. Defendant Suffers Another Conviction While Incarcerated
In May 2011, correctional officers searched defendant and found in his underwear
a blue latex glove containing 13.2 grams of marijuana wrapped in 25 plastic bindles.
In June 2012, a jury convicted defendant of possessing a controlled substance in a
penal institution (§ 4573.6) and possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11359). The trial court found true that defendant had eight strike priors (§§ 667, subds.
(c) & (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)(A)) and one prison prior enhancement (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)). It denied defendant’s motion to strike seven of the strike priors and sentenced
him to a prison term of 25 years to life plus one year for the prison prior enhancement.
(Lewis II, supra, E080083.)
1 All statutory references herein are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated. 2 We have taken judicial notice on our own motion of the record and our opinion in defendant’s appeal from the trial court’s denial of his request for dismissal of his prior strike convictions, People v. Lewis (Mar. 13, 2024, E080083) [nonpub. opn.] (Lewis II). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subd. (a).)
2 On appeal, we ordered modifications of the minute order and abstract of judgment
to correctly reflect the assessments and fees ordered, and to note on the abstract that
defendant’s conviction was by jury trial. We affirmed the judgment in all other respects.
(People v. Lewis (Dec. 19, 2013, E056993) [nonpub. opn.].)
2. Section 1172.75 Is Enacted
Section 1172.75 became effective in January 2022.3 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3,
(Sen. Bill No. 483), eff. Jan. 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 Rehabilitation (CDCR) to identify persons in their
custody currently serving a term for a judgment that includes a prison prior enhancement
coming within section 1172.75(a) and to provide the name of each person and other
specified identifying information to the sentencing court. (§ 1172.75, subd. (b).)
Upon receiving names from CDCR, the sentencing court must review each
person’s current judgment to be sure it includes a section 1172.75(a) enhancement.
3 At the time of its enactment section 1172.75 was designated as section 1171.1. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3, eff. Jan. 1, 2022.) It was renumbered to section 1172.75, effective June 30, 2022, with no substantive changes to the statute (Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12).
3 (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) If the court determines the current judgment includes the
enhancement, it must recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. (Ibid.)
3. Defendant’s First Section 1172.75 Petition
In 2022, defendant was entitled to a full resentencing on account of his prison
prior. At the August 2022 section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the trial court struck the
prison prior enhancement and vacated the sentence that had been imposed on account of
it. It continued the hearing for consideration of defendant’s request that the court
exercise its discretion pursuant to section 1385 and Romero4 to eliminate his prior strikes.
It denied the request at the continued hearing. Defendant appealed and we affirmed.
4. Defendant’s Second Section 1172.75 Petition Resulting in This Appeal
Defendant filed a section 1172.75 petition in May 2025, nearly three years after
his prison prior enhancement had been stricken in accordance with that statute. In his
petition, defendant argued that his name should be on a list from CDCR, which he
asserted was in the trial court's possession. He asked the court to review his file to see if
he qualifies for relief, and invited the court “in furtherance of justice to strike or dismiss
his legally invalid enhancement(s) that were imposed prior to January 1, 2020.”
The trial court, apparently deeming defendant’s petition as coming under section 1172.1
(no doubt because defendant’s prison prior enhancement had already been stricken in
4 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero).
4 accordance with section 1172.75), rejected it with the comment, “[r]ejected
1172.1[, subdivision] (c) … improper format.”5
Defendant appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, defendant’s appointed appellate counsel filed an opening brief that sets
forth statements of the case and facts but does not present any issues for adjudication but
contains a request that we follow the procedures outlined in People v. Delgadillo (2022)
14 Cal.5th 216. The brief also notes counsel considered whether the trial court erred
when it denied defendant’s petition to be resentenced, noting that section 1172.75’s
authorization for resentencing is limited to persons identified by CDCR and that
defendant has not been so identified and is not serving time for any enhancements
identified by section 1172.75 as eligible for relief.
Upon receipt of the opening brief, we notified defendant that his counsel had filed
a brief stating counsel had not found an arguable issue, that this court is not required to
conduct an independent review of the record but it may exercise its discretion to do so,
and we invited him to file any arguments he deemed necessary. In response, defendant
filed arguments stating that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. He
is mistaken. As noted ante, defendant has already been afforded the benefits of section
5 Section 1172.1 authorizes the trial court to recall a sentence on its own motion and resentence a defendant if the applicable sentencing laws at the time of the defendant’s original sentencing had since been changed. (§ 1172.1, subd. (a)(1).) Subdivision (c) of section 1172.1 makes clear that a defendant is not entitled to file a petition seeking relief from the trial court under that section and, if a defendant does request relief, the trial court is not required to respond.
5 1172.75 in August and September 2022, when the trial court held a resentencing hearing
that resulted in an order vacating defendant’s sentence for the prison prior and a denial of
defendant’s request that the court exercise its discretion to strike any of the other
enhancements.
Neither defendant nor his counsel have presented an issue and, upon our review of
the record, we do not find any error.
DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant’s section 1172.75 petition is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
RAMIREZ P. J.
We concur:
CODRINGTON J. RAPHAEL J.