People v. Barboza, 21 Cal. App. 5th 1315

In 2011 the district attorney filed a multi-count information in superior court alleging Barboza was 16 or older when offenses occurred and directly charging him in adult court.
In July 2016 Barboza pleaded guilty to one count of robbery and admitted an armed-with-a-firearm allegation; remaining counts were dismissed.
On July 25, 2016 the court imposed a six-year prison sentence but suspended execution and placed Barboza on five years' formal probation; no appeal was filed.
Proposition 57 (effective Nov. 9, 2016) removed the prosecutor's authority to directly file certain juveniles in adult court, requiring judicial transfer proceedings instead.
Barboza moved to have his case remanded to juvenile court under Proposition 57 as retroactive; the trial court denied the motion and Barboza appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Proposition 57's change (requiring judicial transfer) applies retroactively to defendants whose cases were directly filed in adult court before Prop 57	People (plaintiff) argued that Prop 57 is not applicable because judgments that were final before Prop 57's enactment are not subject to retroactive relief	Barboza argued Prop 57 is retroactive under Estrada and Lara because it reduces possible punishment and thus should apply to nonfinal cases charged by direct filing	The court recognized Lara establishes retroactivity for nonfinal judgments, but Barboza's judgment was final before Prop 57 took effect, so he cannot benefit; judgment affirmed
Whether the sentencing in this case was "final" for Estrada purposes despite suspended execution during probation	Plaintiff contended the sentence was final for appealability and Estrada purposes because the appeal period expired and the court had no remedial jurisdiction on direct review	Barboza relied on Karaman to argue that the trial court retained jurisdiction to modify or vacate the sentence while execution was suspended, so judgment was not final	Court held established precedent (Howard and appellate cases) controls: suspension of execution during probation does not render the judgment nonfinal for Estrada purposes; Karaman does not alter that rule

People v. Superior Court (Lara), 4 Cal.5th 299 (2018) (holds Prop 57 reduces possible punishment for juveniles charged by direct filing and is retroactive to nonfinal judgments)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (establishes the presumption that ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively)
People v. Francis, 71 Cal.2d 66 (1969) (applies Estrada retroactivity principles)
People v. Howard, 16 Cal.4th 1081 (1997) (discusses finality of judgments when sentence is imposed and narrowly recognizes a brief exception for ministerial stays)
People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (1992) (addressed court's limited authority to modify certain sentences but does not change finality rule for suspended execution during probation)
People v. Amons, 125 Cal.App.4th 855 (2005) (holds a sentence that is imposed and execution suspended during probation is a final judgment for appealability)