People v. Espinoza CA4/3

California Court of Appeal May 21, 2025 No. G063427Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. Penal Code section 1172.75 entitles a defendant to resentencing even if their prior prison term enhancements under former section 667.5, subdivision (b) were stricken at the time of the original sentencing.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1172.75 apply to defendants whose prior prison term enhancements were stricken at sentencing rather than executed?

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Analysis of the statute and case law leads us to conclude that section 1172.75 applies to enhancements, like defendant’s, which were stricken for purposes of sentencing, not just those that were imposed and executed.”

“We agree with the Espino majority that there is no articulable reason to differentiate between former section 667.5 enhancements which have been executed, stayed, or stricken for purposes of sentencing.”

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G063427

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

TIMOTHY ESPINOZA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Elisa A. Brandes, 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, Daniel Rogers and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Defendant Timothy 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 two counts of second degree robbery (§§ 211, 212.5, subd. (c)), one count of receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)), and one count of being an accessory after the fact (§ 32). Defendant also admitted he had two prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (d), (e)(2)(A), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(2)(A)), two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)), and two prior prison terms2 (former § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court sentenced defendant to 12 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 petitions for the court to recall and resentence him pursuant to section 1172.75. The court noted the California

People v. Espinoza CA4/3

AI Brief

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

TIMOTHY ESPINOZA, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

SANCHEZ, J.

MOORE, ACTING P. J.

GOODING, J.

AI Brief