People v. Espinoza CA4/3, G063427

Timothy Espinoza pleaded guilty in 2018 to multiple charges, including two counts of second degree robbery, receiving stolen property, and being an accessory after the fact.
Espinoza admitted to having two prior strike convictions, two prior serious felony convictions, and two prior prison terms.
The trial court sentenced Espinoza to 12 years in state prison and imposed but struck (did not execute) punishment for the prior prison term enhancements under former § 667.5(b).
In 2023, Espinoza petitioned for recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.75, arguing eligibility due to changes invalidating prior prison term enhancements.
The trial court denied his petition, reasoning that since the enhancements were stricken or stayed at sentencing, Espinoza was not eligible for resentencing.
Espinoza appealed; the proper scope of relief under § 1172.75 is subject to conflicting appellate opinions and pending California Supreme Court review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Eligibility for resentencing under § 1172.75 when enhancements were stricken or stayed	Espinoza is not eligible because § 1172.75 does not apply to stricken/stayed enhancements	Espinoza is eligible because § 1172.75 applies to any enhancements in the judgment, regardless of execution	Defendant is eligible and entitled to resentencing

Sierra Club v. Superior Court, 57 Cal.4th 157 (Cal. 2013) (statutory interpretation should effectuate legislative intent)
People v. Lewis, 11 Cal.5th 952 (Cal. 2021) (statutory interpretation is a question of law reviewed de novo)
People v. Gonzalez, 43 Cal.4th 1118 (Cal. 2008) (courts must give statutes their usual and ordinary meaning)
People v. Jones, 5 Cal.4th 1142 (Cal. 1993) (explains that a single conviction cannot support enhancements under different sections)