Monday, July 6, 2026
Page 1
Defunct Prior-Prison Enhancement Triggers Resentencing Even if Penalty Was Stricken
Opinion Says Full Hearing is Required Even if No Extra Time Was Ordered
By a MetNews Staff Writer
The California Supreme Court held Thursday that a defendant is entitled to a full resentencing hearing, at which courts are directed to apply any ameliorative changes in the law to reduce a petitioner’s punishment absent a finding that such a sentence would endanger public safety, where his judgment included a now-defunct prior-prison enhancement, even if the penalty associated with the allegation was stricken.
The decision stands on the shoulders of the court’s 2025 opinion in People v. Rhodius, which held that resentencing relief is due to a defendant whose prior-prison enhancement was imposed but stayed by the sentencing court.
Acknowledging that the Office of the Attorney General attempted to distinguish Rhodius based on an assertion that, “[u]nlike a prior prison term enhancement with stayed punishment, an enhancement with stricken punishment lacks even the potential to result in any adverse consequence for the defendant,” Justice Leondra Kruger, writing for a unanimous court, said:
“Although there are certainly practical differences between staying punishment and striking punishment, the Attorney General’s arguments do not persuade us that the differences warrant different treatment under [Penal Code] section 1172.75(a).”
That section provides that “[a]ny sentence enhancement that was imposed prior to January 1, 2020” for prior-prison terms, “except for any enhancement imposed for a prior conviction” for certain sexually violent offenses, “is legally invalid.”
The statute sets forth procedures for an inmate serving time “for a judgment that includes” such an enhancement and specifies in subdivision (d):
“Resentencing pursuant to this section shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.”
Seeking relief under the statutory scheme was Jack Espino, who pled no contest to robbery and other charges in 2017 and admitted several sentencing enhancements, including an allegation that he had previously served time in prison for a joyriding offense. The court sentenced him to 26 years in prison and imposed one-year penalty for the enhancement but said that it was “striking that additional punishment.”
Petition Seeking Relief
In 2023, Espino filed a petition for resentencing relief under §1172.75. On May 2, 2023, Santa Clara Superior Court Judge William Monahan denied his request, ruling that the provision does not apply if “the punishment…was stayed, stricken, or dismissed.”
A divided Sixth District Court of Appeal reversed in August 2024, declaring:
“[S]ection 1172.75 should be interpreted to apply whenever a prison prior was imposed, whether punishment was executed, stayed, or struck.”
Saying that “[w]e affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal,” Kruger wrote:
“We held in People v. Rhodius…that such an enhancement was ‘imposed’ even though the enhancement was stayed rather than executed. The question in this case is whether an enhancement was ‘imposed’ even though the sentencing court struck the punishment for the enhancement. The answer is yes.”
Imposition of Sentence
Noing 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,” she opined that the lawyers with the Attorney General’s Office relied on the faulty premise that an enhancement carries no practical weight after a court strikes the associated penalty.
She recognized that, unlike an order that “stays” a penalty such that the court can later lift the stay and impose the punishment, a decree striking a sentencing enhancement usually forecloses even a “contingent” possibility of the court later imposing the additional incarceration time. However, she pointed out that the general rule gives way at resentencing.
Rejecting the assertion that a defendant faces no prospect of punishment on a now-defunct enhancement at resentencing, she remarked that it was unlikely that the Legislature intended to exempt enhancements from the statutory scheme if the penalty was stricken at sentencing, saying:
“Even assuming a punishment-stricken enhancement could not be given effect now because of postsentencing legislation, the most natural understanding is that the enhancement was still ‘imposed prior to January 1, 2020’ within the meaning of section 1172.75(a).”
Legislative History
Reasoning that the legislative history “bolsters this conclusion,” she pointed out that the court emphasized in Rhodius that the Legislature’s goal in enacting the amendments was not simply to reduce incarcerations but also to address what legislators perceived as a fundamental unfairness of imposing harsher penalties for a crime based on a suspect’s criminal history. Kruger commented:
“In short, while there may be differences between stayed enhancements and punishment-stricken enhancements, the differences do not warrant a result different from the result in Rhodius. Espino’s judgment contains a prior prison term enhancement. That enhancement was ‘imposed’…and is now invalid, even though the punishment for the enhancement was stricken. Espino is therefore entitled to resentencing under section 1172.75, according to the procedures the statute sets forth.”
In a footnote, the justice added:
“Our decision in Rhodius…left open whether a prior prison term enhancement is ‘imposed’…‘when an enhancement, not just its associated punishment, [is] stricken’….As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it.”
The case is People v. Espino, 2026 S.O.S. 1944.
Copyright 2026, Metropolitan News Company