People v. Eckstein CA4/3

Filed 11/20/25 P. v. Eckstein 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G064464

v. (Super. Ct. No. 17CF0713)

HERMAN BUSMO ECKSTEIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Jonathan S. Fish, Judge. Reversed and remanded. Robert V. Vallandigham, Jr., 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 Evan Stele, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Herman Busmo Eckstein appeals the denial of his petition to recall his sentence and resentence him pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75.1 We reverse and remand for resentencing. FACTS Eckstein pleaded guilty to second degree robbery in 2017. The trial court also found true that he had served a prior prison term for purposes of section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court sentenced Eckstein to an aggregate term of 12 years. It imposed a one-year sentence for the prior prison term but then struck that punishment for purposes of sentencing. Eckstein petitioned for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75. Because punishments on his prison priors were stricken, the court ruled he was ineligible based on People v. Rhodius (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 38, which our high court recently reversed in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 (Rhodius). DISCUSSION Eckstein contends the trial court erred in denying his resentencing petition based on section 1172.75. We agree. In contrast to the punishment at issue in Rhodius, the sentencing court here did not stay but rather struck the prior prison enhancements. (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1056.) The question before us is whether section 1172.75 entitles Johnson to a resentencing hearing even though the enhancements were stricken for the purposes of sentencing. Rhodius explicitly did not reach this question. (Rhodius, at p. 1066, fn. 2.) We agree with defendant that he is entitled to resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.