People v. Espinoza CA4/3

Filed 5/21/25 P. v. Espinoza CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G063740

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CF2411)

THOMAS ESPINOZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Ronda G. Norris, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorneys General, Vincent P. LaPietra and Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Thomas Espinoza appeals from the court’s denial of his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him pursuant to Penal Code 1 section 1172.75. Defendant contends he is eligible for resentencing, but the Attorney General argues defendant is not entitled to resentencing because the court struck his prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b). Pending review of the issue by our Supreme Court, we agree with defendant and reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS In 2018, defendant pleaded guilty to seven counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)) and one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)). Defendant also admitted he had prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and had suffered prior prison terms (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to 15 years in state prison. Relevant here, the court also imposed but struck punishment for the former section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancements. In 2023, defendant filed a petition for the court to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1172.75. The court noted the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified defendant as an individual potentially eligible for relief but declined to recall defendant’s sentence “because all related enhancements were either stayed or stricken at the time of sentencing.” The court’s order also stated, “If Defendant appeals this decision, the briefing, oral and written arguments, transcripts, decision,