Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In December 2011, a jury convicted Robert Andrew Esparza of attempted involuntary manslaughter, shooting at an inhabited dwelling, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, and criminal street gang activity, along with various firearm and gang enhancements. Esparza admitted three prior strike convictions, three prior serious felony convictions, and one prior prison term. In January 2012, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 95 years to life plus five years. The court imposed but struck punishment on the prior prison term enhancement. On appeal, this court affirmed the convictions but ordered a stay on one count under section 654. On remand in November 2013, the trial court resentenced Esparza to 70 years to life plus five years.
In December 2023, Esparza sought recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, which provides retroactive relief for certain now-invalid sentence enhancements. The trial court denied his request for a full resentencing hearing. Esparza appealed, and a majority panel of this court initially affirmed, with Justice Fields dissenting. On September 30, 2026, the California Supreme Court issued an order directing this court to vacate its decision and reconsider the cause in light of People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57. After vacating its prior decision and receiving supplemental briefing, the court reversed.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that under Espino, a defendant whose judgment includes a prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020, is entitled to a full resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, even if the trial court struck punishment on that enhancement. The court explained that a true finding on a prior prison term allegation remains part of the sentencing order even when punishment is stricken, and such enhancements can have adverse consequences in future resentencing proceedings. Because Esparza's judgment included a prior prison term enhancement for possession of a controlled substance—which is not a sexually violent offense—and the trial court denied his request for a full resentencing hearing, reversal was required.
The court directed the trial court on remand to strike the section 667.5, subdivision (b) enhancement in its entirety and to hold a full resentencing hearing. The court noted that although the trial court initially indicated an intent to strike the enhancement, it appears to have recanted after argument from counsel, and no new abstract of judgment appears in the record. The court expressed no opinion on whether Esparza would be entitled to any further relief at the resentencing hearing.
Key Takeaways
- A prior prison term enhancement on which punishment was stricken before January 1, 2020, still entitles a defendant to a full resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.75.
- Under People v. Espino, a true finding on a prior prison term allegation is part of the sentencing order even when the associated punishment is stricken, and such enhancements may have adverse consequences in future proceedings.
- Full resentencing under section 1172.75 requires the trial court to consider a broad range of factors, including changes in law and postconviction factors, and must result in a lesser sentence unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that a lesser sentence would endanger public safety.
- The phrase 'lesser sentence' in section 1172.75 does not necessarily mean a shorter term of imprisonment; it means the new sentence must eliminate whatever adverse effects flow from the now-invalid enhancement.
- When a trial court declines to strike an invalid enhancement and no new abstract of judgment is issued, the appellate court may direct the trial court to strike the enhancement in its entirety on remand.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the California Supreme Court's holding in People v. Espino that defendants are entitled to full resentencing relief under section 1172.75 even when the trial court previously struck punishment on a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. The ruling clarifies that stricken enhancements remain part of the sentencing order and can have ongoing adverse effects, requiring trial courts to conduct full resentencing hearings that consider all relevant factors and eliminate any adverse consequences flowing from the invalid enhancement.
The case also demonstrates the procedural effect of a Supreme Court transfer order directing reconsideration in light of new precedent. After initially affirming the trial court's denial, the Court of Appeal reversed course following the Supreme Court's directive and the parties' supplemental briefing, illustrating how intervening high court authority can alter the outcome of pending appeals.