In re Rodriguez, 66 Cal.App.5th 952

Pedro Luis Rodriguez was sentenced in a first proceeding to a determinate term of 13 years 4 months, which included a one-year prior-prison-term enhancement under former Penal Code § 667.5(b).
That first judgment was affirmed on appeal and the California Supreme Court denied review; Rodriguez began serving that sentence.
Rodriguez committed new crimes, was convicted in a second proceeding, and at resentencing the trial court announced an aggregate determinate term of 14 years 8 months under § 1170.1 that incorporated the one-year enhancement from the first judgment.
While his second appeal was pending, the Legislature amended § 667.5 to limit the prior-prison-term enhancement to certain sexually violent offenses.
Rodriguez argued (via habeas) that under In re Estrada the amendment should apply retroactively because his aggregate sentence was not final; the Attorney General argued the first judgment was final before the amendment and its inclusion in the aggregate term did not reopen finality.
The court held the amendment does not apply retroactively: the first judgment was final pre-amendment and the § 1170.1 aggregate-sentencing process does not nullify the finality of that prior judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether amendment to § 667.5 applies retroactively to eliminate a one-year prior-prison-term enhancement included in an aggregate sentence	Estrada retroactivity: aggregate sentence was not final when amendment took effect, so Rodriguez should benefit	The first judgment (where enhancement was imposed) was final before the amendment; inclusion in later aggregate sentence under § 1170.1 does not reopen finality	Amendment not retroactive; the first judgment was final pre-amendment and aggregate sentencing does not render it nonfinal
Whether announcing an aggregate term under § 1170.1 reopens or alters discretionary sentencing choices from a prior final judgment	Aggregate announcement means the sentence wasn’t final for retroactivity purposes	§ 1170.1 requires preservation of prior discretionary choices and only permits limited modification (principal term designation); it does not resentence or render prior judgment nonfinal	Aggregate announcement is part of a new proceeding and does not resentence or reopen finality except as § 1170.1 narrowly allows

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (establishes retroactivity presumption for ameliorative statutes)
People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (2021) (confirms and explains Estrada’s nonfinality requirement and legislative-intent basis)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (discusses finality and sentencing limits under determinate-sentencing rules)
In re Reeves, 35 Cal.4th 765 (2005) (explains aggregation of consecutive determinate terms under § 1170.1)
People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (2020) (applies Estrada where defendant had not exhausted direct review and sentence execution was not final)