People v. Garrett CA6

── People v. Garrett CA6 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Garrett CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT THE PEOPLE, H052885 (Santa Cruz County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. F05575) v. WILLIAM RUSSELL GARRETT, Defendant and Appellant. The trial court denied a petition by defendant William Russell Garrett for resentencing under what is now Penal Code section 1172.75 because, by the time the trial court conducted a resentencing hearing, Garrett had been released on parole. (Subsequent undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.) Garrett has appealed, and in light of a recent Court of Appeal decision, People v. Washington (2026) 117 Cal.App.5th 1057 (Washington), the Attorney General has conceded that Garrett is eligible for resentencing. As explained below, we accept this concession. Accordingly, the order denying resentencing is reversed, and the matter is remanded for resentencing under section 1172.75. I. BACKGROUND In 2003, a jury convicted Garrett of burglary under section 459, subd (a), and the trial court found that he had three prior strike convictions, two prior serious felony convictions, and had served two prior prison terms. The following year Garrett was sentenced to 25 years to life consecutive to 12 years, including two years under section 667.5 for the prison priors. In June 2023, after the Legislature enacted Senate Bill No. 483 (2021-2022 Sess.) making the earlier elimination of most prison priors retroactive (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3; see also Stats. 2022, ch. 58, § 12 [moving provision to section 1172.75]), Garrett petitioned for resentencing. Although the trial court had appointed counsel for Garrett in January 2023, the court did not conduct a resentencing hearing until November 2024, more than a month after Garrett was released on parole. The delay was in part due to Garrett’s dissatisfaction with counsel. He complained about the counsel initially appointed to represent him in June 2023, which led to the appointment of new counsel in October 2023. Over the next five months Garrett expressed dissatisfaction with his new counsel and asked for a replacement, In April 2024, the trial granted a motion by counsel to be relieved, and in May 2024 a third counsel was appointed. This counsel did not file a petition for resentencing until July 2024. However, by that time, Garrett already had been found suitable for parole, and he was released from custody in September 2024, more than a month before the resentencing hearing. In December 2024, after the hearing, the trial court denied Garrett’s section 1172.75 petition. The court held that Garrett’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.75 was moot because “Mr. Garrett is no longer incarcerated and was . . . granted parole since the time of the filed Petition[].” Noting that the Legislature intended section 1172.75 to address lengthy prison sentences, the court reasoned that Garrett was “ineligible as a parolee to strike an enhancement and its punishment.” The next day, Garrett filed a notice of appeal. II. DISCUSSION A little over a week after briefing on this appeal was completed, People v Washington, supra, 117 Cal.App.5th 1067, was issued. In light of Washington, the Attorney General reconsider