Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Defendant Raymond Anthony Archuleta pled guilty in April 2017 to criminal threat under Penal Code section 422 and admitted personal use of a deadly or dangerous weapon, a prior serious felony conviction, two prior strikes, and two prior prison terms under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The Riverside County Superior Court sentenced him to 12 years in state prison, struck one strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero), and as to the prison priors either stayed the enhancement and struck the punishment or imposed the enhancement but struck the punishment. In 2022, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation notified the trial court that Archuleta's abstract of judgment included prior prison term enhancements under section 667.5(b), which Senate Bill No. 136 had invalidated effective January 1, 2020.
The trial court held a hearing and found Archuleta ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because he was not serving additional time based on the prison priors; it struck the priors and ordered an amended abstract of judgment. The Court of Appeal initially affirmed that decision, reasoning the enhancements had not been 'imposed and executed.' The California Supreme Court granted review, deferred action pending People v. Rhodius and then People v. Espino, and on September 30, 2026 transferred the cause back with directions to vacate the Court of Appeal's decision and reconsider in light of Espino. After vacating its prior decision and receiving supplemental briefing, the Court of Appeal filed its opinion on October 19, 2026; on October 23, 2026 it filed an order modifying that opinion solely to correct the disposition's statutory citation and stating that the modification did not affect the judgment.
The Court’s Holding
In the October 19, 2026 opinion, the Court of Appeal reversed the order finding Archuleta ineligible for resentencing and remanded the cause to the superior court with directions to conduct a full resentencing hearing. The court held that, under People v. Espino, an enhancement is 'imposed' even when the sentencing court struck its punishment, and because the section 667.5(b) prison prior enhancements were now invalid, Archuleta was entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75. The court emphasized that both parties agreed the cause must be remanded for a full resentencing hearing pursuant to Espino's mandate.
The October 23, 2026 order modifying opinion did not change that result. It modified the second sentence of the disposition on page 9 to replace the reference to 'section 1172.5' with 'section 1172.75,' so the sentence reads that the cause is remanded with directions to conduct a full resentencing hearing pursuant to section 1172.75, subdivision (d). The order expressly states 'NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT' and that the modification does not affect the judgment. The opinion remains unpublished and may not be cited or relied on except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant is entitled to resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75 when a judgment includes a now-invalid section 667.5(b) prison prior enhancement, even if the punishment for that enhancement was stricken, because the enhancement was still 'imposed.'
- The California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Espino resolved the stricken-punishment question in the defendant's favor, and the Court of Appeal applied that holding to Archuleta because he was in the same position as the Espino defendant.
- The substantive disposition is reversal of the ineligibility order and remand for a full resentencing hearing; the later order only corrected the statutory citation in the disposition and expressly left the judgment unchanged.
- At a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing, the court must impose a lesser sentence unless it finds a lesser sentence would endanger public safety, and it must apply other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide judicial discretion.
- Invalid prior prison term enhancements can affect an inmate's classification score, housing assignment, and access to rehabilitative or educational programs even when they do not lengthen the term of imprisonment.
Why It Matters
The opinion applies People v. Espino to confirm that the manner in which a prior prison term enhancement was handled at sentencing—stayed, executed, or imposed with punishment stricken—does not defeat eligibility for resentencing under section 1172.75. That reading gives defendants the full benefit of Senate Bill No. 136's elimination of most section 667.5(b) enhancements and helps correct records that affect prison classification and programming.
The companion modification order is narrow but important for the record: it corrects the disposition's citation to section 1172.75, subdivision (d), while expressly preserving the judgment. The case therefore remains an unpublished decision reversing the resentencing denial and remanding for a full resentencing hearing, not a new or expanded judgment.