In this resentencing appeal, the Court of Appeal agreed that the trial court erred by failing to consider Appellant’s Romero motion during his Senate Bill no. 483 resentencing hearing. The court concluded that a resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 requires a “full resentencing” by the trial court, not just striking newly invalid enhancements. (People v Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402.) The Court of Appeal held that because the trial court either believed it did not have discretion to consider the Romero motion at resentencing or was unaware of the scope of its discretion, the case must remanded. Moreover, the court found that appellant was entitled to a sentencing decision made in the exercise of “informed discretion” by the trial court. The court concluded that since the record did not “clearly indicate” that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion if it was aware of its discretion or its scope during sentencing, the appropriate remedy is remand for resentencing.