Jump To

Top Caption Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 17, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

People v. Baidi CA2/4

California Court of Appeal

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: B342174

• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

• Opinion

• Authorities (1)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Combined Opinion

Filed 3/17/26 P. v. Baidi CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B342174

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. SA065515)
v.

SAEED BAIDI,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Christopher W. Dybwad, Judge. Vacated and remanded with directions.
Dan E. Chambers, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General,
Idan Ivri, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nima Razfar, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant Saeed Baidi contends this case must be remanded because
the trial court did not comply with Penal Code section 1172.751 when it
struck his prior prison term enhancements. The Attorney General agrees, as
do we. We vacate Baidi’s sentence and remand for a full resentencing
hearing consistent with section 1172.75, at which Baidi has a right to be
present, represented by appointed counsel, and present evidence and
argument in support of any request for further sentencing relief.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY2
In 2008, a jury convicted Baidi of two counts of premeditated attempted
murder (§§ 664/187, subd. (a), counts 1 and 2), shooting at an occupied motor
vehicle (§ 246, count 3), street terrorism (§ 186.22, subd. (a), count 4), and
possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 5). As to counts
1, 2, and 5, the jury found true that the crimes were committed for the benefit
of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)). As to counts 1, 2, and 3,
the jury further found firearm allegations to be true (§ 12022.53, subds. (b),
(c)). Baidi admitted he suffered two prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5,
subd. (b)).
The court sentenced Baidi to a total of two life terms plus 44 years in
state prison. As to count 1, the court imposed a life term plus 20 years for the
firearm enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (c)), plus an additional 2 years for
the prior prison term enhancements. The court stayed the remaining firearm
enhancements (§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (g)). The court imposed the same

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise
stated.

2 We omit a summary of the facts underlying Baidi’s convictions as they
are irrelevant to the issues on appeal.
2
sentence in count 2. As to count 3, the court imposed and stayed 15 years to
life, plus an additional 2 years for the prior prison term enhancements.
(§ 654.) As to count 4, the court imposed 4 years plus an additional 2 years
for the prior prison term enhancements. As to count 5, the court imposed 2
years, plus 3 years for the gang enhancement, and an additional 2 years for
the prior prison term enhancements. The sentences in counts 4 and 5 were
ordered to run concurrently with all other counts.
In 2024, Baidi was identified as an inmate eligible for resentencing
pursuant to section 1172.75. Without conducting a full resentencing hearing,
the trial court struck Baidi’s prior prison term enhancements. No party was
present, including counsel for Baidi. The court’s ruling resulted in two life
terms plus 40 years in state prison.
Baidi timely appealed.

DISCUSSION
We agree with the parties that Baidi’s sentence must be vacated and
the matter remanded for a full resentencing hearing consistent with section
1172.75.
Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5, subdivision (b) required a court
to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each separate prior prison
term served for a nonviolent felony, unless the defendant remained free from
custody for at least five years. (See Stats. 1987, ch. 611, § 1 [§ 667.5, former
subd. (b)].) Effective January 1, 2022, the Legislature retroactively
invalidated prior prison term enhancements imposed under section 667.5,
subdivision (b) prior to January 1, 2020, unless the term was served for
certain sexually violent offenses. (Sen. Bill No. 483 (2021–2022 Reg. Sess.)
(Senate Bill 483) (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, §§ 1, 3).) The Legislature also created

3
procedures, in what is now section 1172.75, for sentencing courts to recall
and resentence defendants who were serving prison terms on judgments that
included the now invalid enhancement. (Stats. 2021, ch. 728, § 3.)
Under section 1172.75, if a trial court determines a defendant is
serving a sentence that includes a now invalid prior prison term
enhancement, the court must “recall the sentence and resentence the
defendant.” (§ 1172.75, subd. (c).) At the resentencing hearing, the court
must eliminate the repealed prior prison term enhancement. (Id., subd.
(d)(1).) But that is not the only thing the court is required to do. Section
1172.75 “provides specific instructions for the resentencing.” (People v.
Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 966.) The court shall appoint counsel for
the defendant (§ 1172.75, subd. (d)(5)) and apply any “changes in law that
reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity
of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing” (id., subd. (d)(2)).
Section 1172.75 also permits courts to consider postconviction factors in the
resentencing inquiry, including “evidence that reflects that circumstances
have changed since the original sentencing so that continued incarceration is
no longer in the interest of justice.” (Id., subd. (d)(3).)
Here, Baidi was eligible for relief under section 1172.75 as his prior
convictions used for the prior prison term enhancements were not for a
sexually violent offense. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) The trial court struck Baidi’s
prior prison term enhancements. The court, however, was required to
conduct a full resentencing hearing, during which Baidi had the opportunity
to be present and represented by appointed counsel. (People v. Velasco (2023)
97 Cal.App.5th 663, 668, 673–674 [remanding for new hearing under
§ 1172.75 because defendant was not present at hearing and did not waive
his presence]; People v. Cutting (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 344, 346 [defendant’s

4
absence from resentencing hearing constitutes federal constitutional error].)
“By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely
that the trial court strike the newly ‘invalid’ enhancements.” (People v.
Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402; People v. Carter, supra, 97
Cal.App.5th at pp. 968, 972 [defendant eligible for relief under § 1172.75 is
entitled to full resentencing hearing to argue for further relief under other
ameliorative changes]; People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562, 568
[same].)
We vacate Baidi’s sentence and remand the matter for a full
resentencing hearing consistent with section 1172.75. Prior to the
resentencing hearing, the court shall appoint counsel to represent Baidi. (Id.,
subd. (d)(5).) Baidi is entitled to be present at the resentencing hearing.
(§ 977, subd. (b)(1).) Upon resentencing Baidi, the court shall recalculate his
custody credits. (People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23, 40–41 [upon
remand, trial court responsible for calculating all days defendant spent in
custody prior to resentencing and presentence conduct credits prior to
original sentencing].)

5
DISPOSITION
The sentence is vacated and the matter remanded to the superior court
to conduct a full resentencing in accordance with section 1172.75. Upon the
conclusion of the resentencing hearing, the superior court is directed to
prepare and file an amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified
copy of the document to the California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

ZUKIN, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

MORI, J.

TAMZARIAN, J.

6