People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671

In 2015 Esquivel pleaded no contest to a felony, admitted two prior prison terms, and the trial court imposed a prison term (3 years plus two 1‑year priors) but suspended execution and placed him on probation.
Esquivel did not appeal the 2015 sentencing order at that time.
In 2018 the court found a probation violation, revoked probation, and ordered the previously imposed prison sentence to take effect; Esquivel appealed that revocation/order.
While the 2018 appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 136 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020), narrowing the §667.5(b) enhancement so it would not have applied to Esquivel’s priors if it had been in effect at sentencing.
The parties agreed SB 136 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments; they disagreed whether Esquivel’s case was “final” when SB 136 took effect.
The Court of Appeal held the case was final (because Esquivel had not appealed the 2015 suspension order); the Supreme Court granted review and reversed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a case in which a defendant is placed on probation with execution of an imposed prison sentence suspended is "final" for Estrada purposes when the defendant did not timely appeal the probation order but may still timely obtain direct review of a later order revoking probation and imposing sentence.	The relevant cutoff is the date the judgment of conviction/sentence becomes final; Esquivel’s failure to appeal the 2015 order rendered the judgment final before SB 136.	A case is not final while direct review of an order that would cause the imposed sentence to take effect remains available; the criminal prosecution/proceeding was ongoing when SB 136 took effect.	The Court held the case was not final: Estrada’s presumption applies where direct review of an order revoking probation and imposing the previously suspended execution remains available; ameliorative legislation presumptively applies.
What "final" means for Estrada purposes (focus of the finality inquiry).	Finality should track finality of the judgment/sentence for appealability.	Finality should focus on whether the criminal prosecution or proceeding as a whole is complete (including pending direct review of revocation orders).	The Court adopted the prosecution/proceeding‑completion focus: finality turns on whether the criminal proceeding is concluded, not merely on whether an earlier sentencing order was subject to appeal.

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply to cases not final when statute takes effect)
People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (2020) (held suspended‑imposition probation cases are not final while appeal from later revocation remains available)
In re Corcoran, 64 Cal.2d 447 (1966) (nonfinal convictions may receive benefit of later ameliorative statutes)
People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (1976) (framed finality inquiry in terms of the criminal proceeding as a whole)
People v. Chavez, 4 Cal.5th 771 (2018) (probation terms and proceedings may be modified; grant of probation does not necessarily end the prosecution)
People v. Gentile, 10 Cal.5th 830 (2020) (ameliorative statutes that create specific retroactivity mechanisms can limit Estrada’s reach)