Reported / Citable
Background
In 2017, Jack Espino pleaded no contest to robbery and related charges. The charging document included a prior prison term allegation under former Penal Code § 667.5, subdivision (b), which at the time required courts to add a one-year term to a sentence for each prior separate prison term served for a felony. Espino admitted the allegation was true. At sentencing, the trial court exercised its discretion to strike the additional punishment — meaning Espino’s sentence was not actually lengthened by the enhancement — but the court did not strike the allegation itself. The abstract of judgment reflected that the allegation had been found true.
Years later, California’s Legislature retroactively abolished most prior prison term enhancements as unjust and overly burdensome, enacting Penal Code § 1172.75. That statute declares legally invalid any § 667.5(b) enhancement that was “imposed” before January 1, 2020, and entitles defendants “currently serving a term for a judgment that includes” such an enhancement to a full resentencing. Espino petitioned for resentencing. The trial court denied it, reading “imposed” to require that the enhancement actually added time to the sentence — something that didn’t happen when punishment was stricken. A divided Court of Appeal reversed; the CA Supreme Court granted review.
The case follows last year’s People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, in which the Court held that a § 667.5(b) enhancement is “imposed” even when its punishment was stayed rather than executed. Espino presented the next step: what if the court went further and struck the punishment entirely?
The Court’s Holding
The Court, in a unanimous opinion by Justice Kruger, holds that a prior prison term enhancement is “imposed” within the meaning of § 1172.75(a) even when the sentencing court exercised its discretion to strike the associated punishment. Espino is entitled to petition for a full resentencing.
Applying the same textual and structural analysis used in Rhodius, the Court concludes that “imposed” means an enhancement was “made part of a legally effective order” — which occurred when the trial court found the allegation true, even without executing or even carrying the punishment. The Court rejects the Attorney General’s argument that a punishment-stricken enhancement lacks any “potential adverse consequence” and therefore was never really imposed in any meaningful sense. The Court notes that the allegation was admitted, reflected in the abstract of judgment, and formally part of the judgment — that is enough to be “imposed.”
The Court also emphasizes that § 1172.75(a) is about declaring which enhancements are now “legally invalid” — it is not, in the first instance, about resentencing procedure. The resentencing obligations in § 1172.75(d) follow automatically from the invalidity finding. And the Legislature’s broad language — invalidating “any” § 667.5(b) enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 — contains no carve-out for punishment-stricken enhancements. Where the Legislature wanted exceptions, it said so explicitly.
Key Takeaways
- Penal Code § 1172.75 resentencing eligibility now extends to defendants whose prior prison term enhancement was found true but whose punishment was stricken at sentencing — the third major expansion of the statute’s reach after executed and stayed enhancements.
- Defense attorneys handling post-conviction matters should audit all pre-2020 clients whose sentences include a § 667.5(b) finding, regardless of whether the punishment was executed, stayed, or stricken.
- A full resentencing under § 1172.75 must result in a lesser or equal sentence — the court cannot impose a longer sentence than the original.
- The resentencing is broad: the court must consider changes in law and post-conviction factors that benefit the defendant.
- Prosecution offices should identify affected cases proactively, as the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is required under § 1172.75(b) to identify eligible defendants and refer them for resentencing.
Why It Matters
This ruling effectively closes the last significant gap in California’s retroactive elimination of prior prison term enhancements. After Rhodius covered stayed enhancements and this decision covers stricken-punishment enhancements, nearly every § 667.5(b) finding that appeared in a pre-2020 judgment now qualifies for invalidation and resentencing — regardless of how the sentencing court handled the associated punishment at the time.
For the many defendants serving sentences in California state prison with one of these technical “prior prison term” findings on their record, this means a right to return to court for a full resentencing hearing. Defense counsel handling post-conviction writs, habeas petitions, or resentencing petitions should treat this ruling as a clear green light to file on behalf of eligible clients. Notably, even when the punishment was stricken and the defendant’s initial sentence appeared unaffected, the now-invalid enhancement may have carried collateral consequences — parole terms, restitution enhancements, registration requirements — that a full resentencing can address.