P. v. Estrada CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Jul 1, 2025 No. E083032Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Penal Code section 1172.75 applies to defendants who have prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but stayed. Consequently, the trial court erred in denying the defendant's eligibility for resentencing.

Issues

Does Penal Code section 1172.75 apply to defendants with prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but stayed?

Disposition. Reversed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Estrada argues that section 1172.75 applies to defendants who have prior prison term enhancements that were imposed but stayed. We agree.”

“The trial court’s order denying resentencing under section 1172.75 is reversed.”

Filed 7/1/25 P. v Estrada CA4/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E083032

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF088498)

RICHARD ESTRADA, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge.

Reversed with directions.

Nicholas Seymour, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and

Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Christopher P. Beesley and

Daniel Rogers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2001, a jury convicted Richard Estrada of second degree robbery (Pen. Code,

§ 211; unlabeled statutory references are to this code) and possession of a controlled

substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350). Estrada admitted that he had five prior strike

convictions (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)), and the court found that he had

two prior serious felony convictions (§ 667, subd. (a)) and had served two prior prison

P. v. Estrada CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

RICHARD ESTRADA, OPINION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

MENETREZ J.

RAMIREZ P. J.

MILLER J.

AI Brief