Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in finding the defendant ineligible under section 1172.75 where punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was struck by the trial court at the time of the original sentencing.
First Holding:
Before the year 2020, former section 667.5 of the Penal Code instructed criminal sentencing courts to impose a one-year term for each prior separate prison term or county jail term the defendant had previously served for a felony. In an effort to reduce the societal and fiscal burdens of incarceration, the Legislature amended the Penal Code to eliminate these enhancements, except in cases involving prior terms for sexually violent offenses. It later made these changes retroactive.
The operative provision states that any sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020, pursuant to subdivision section 667.5(b) is legally invalid (with an exception not pertinent in this case).
Authority:
People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 60
Second Holding:
A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. That resentencing must be a full resentencing, at which the trial court must consider a broad range of factors, including changes in law that reduce sentences and postconviction factors that inure in the defendant’s favor.
The resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Regardless, the resentencing shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.
Authority:
PEN 1172.75
People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 60
Third Holding:
The phrase ‘lesser sentence’ need not refer to a shorter sentence; rather, it can be understood to mean that the new sentence must eliminate whatever adverse effects flow from the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement, even if those effects do not take the form of a longer term of imprisonment.
Authority:
People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 62
Fourth Holding:
A true finding on a prior prison term allegation is a part of the sentencing order, even when the associated punishment is stricken. It follows that, as a matter of ordinary usage, an enhancement included in the sentence in a criminal case may be ‘imposed’ even if the punishment for that enhancement is stricken. Even punishment-stricken enhancements have potential adverse consequences should a court ever conduct a resentencing to correct other errors in the defendant’s sentence.
Authority:
People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57, 64-65
Fifth Holding:
The trial court concluded that the defendant was ineligible for resentencing under section 1172.75 because the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was struck at the original sentencing.
As explained by Espino, that reasoning was in error. The matter must be reversed and remanded with directions to the court below to hold a full resentencing hearing.
Authority:
People v. Espino (2026) 20 Cal.5th 57