Following up on its People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050 decision (see here), the Supreme Court today, in People v. Espino, again allows more defendants to take advantage of a statute retroactively eliminating most sentence enhancements imposed for prior prison terms.
In Rhodius, the court held the statute (Penal Code section 1172.75), which generally requires resentencing for those “currently serving a term for a judgment that includes [a since-eliminated and now invalid] enhancement” that was “imposed,” applies even if the enhancement was imposed but then stayed. The enhancement need not have been both imposed and executed. The stay of an enhancement can be lifted under certain circumstances.
Today’s unanimous Espino opinion by Justice Kruger says that an “enhancement was ‘imposed’ . . . , and is now invalid, even though the punishment for the enhancement was stricken.” The superior court had struck the punishment tied to the admitted prior prison term allegation, but didn’t strike the allegation itself.
So, an enhancement has been “imposed” for purposes of section 1172.75 if it was stayed (Rhodius) or if the punishment for it was stricken (Espino). What if the superior court strikes the enhancement and not just its associated punishment? That’s for the next 1172.75 case. “As that question is not at issue in this case, we do not address it,” says the minimalist court.
Espino had been a grant-and-hold for Rhodius and another case, but the court un-held Espino after it decided Rhodius. (See here.)
The court affirms the Sixth District Court of Appeal’s 2-1 partially published opinion.
