People v. Gezzer CA5, F076566B

In 2014 Gezzer pleaded no contest to possession for sale (Health & Safety Code § 11378) and received a split six-year sentence: two years in county jail and four years mandatory supervision; the sentence included a 3-year prior-narcotics enhancement (H&S § 11370.2(c)) and a 1-year prior-prison-term enhancement (Pen. Code § 667.5(b)).
Gezzer began serving the sentence and did not timely appeal the 2014 judgment.
In 2017 Gezzer pleaded no contest to receiving stolen vehicle equipment (Pen. Code § 496d), admitted violating mandatory supervision, and the court revoked mandatory supervision and ordered execution of the 2014 sentence as the principal term; the parties negotiated an aggregate term of 6 years 8 months (2014 term plus an 8‑month consecutive subordinate term), with one felony count dismissed as part of the plea.
While the 2017 appeal was pending, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 180 (effective Jan. 1, 2018) narrowing H&S § 11370.2(c) and Senate Bill 136 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) narrowing Pen. Code § 667.5(b), such that Gezzer no longer qualified for the enhancements imposed in 2014.
After the Supreme Court’s decision in Esquivel, the parties agreed Gezzer is entitled to the laws’ retroactive benefit; the court ordered the 3‑year and 1‑year enhancements stricken and remanded for further proceedings because the 2017 plea is no longer enforceable.

Issue	People’s Argument	Gezzer’s Argument	Held
May Gezzer obtain retroactive benefit of SB 180 and SB 136?	Initially argued no (2014 judgment was final); later conceded after Esquivel that he may.	Argued he should benefit from the ameliorative changes.	Held: Gezzer benefits; the criminal proceeding was not complete for retroactivity purposes.
Is a split sentence/mandatory supervision final for Estrada retroactivity?	Argued the 2014 judgment was final (no timely appeal) and enhancements therefore not retroactive.	Argued mandatory supervision/split sentence leaves the proceeding nonfinal so ameliorative laws apply.	Held: Following Esquivel, suspended-execution/mandatory-supervision contexts are nonfinal for Estrada retroactivity; ameliorative statutes apply.
Remedy — may court simply strike enhancements and leave 2017 plea intact?	Argued remand required so parties can withdraw or renegotiate plea or proceed to trial.	Argued court should just strike enhancements without unwinding plea.	Held: Remand required; the 2017 stipulated sentence is unenforceable and parties must be restored to status quo ante.
Does vacating the enhancements require undoing the 2014 conviction?	N/A	Argued 2014 conviction wasn’t a plea bargain so it should remain.	Held: 2014 conviction remains (it was not the product of a plea bargain); only the invalid enhancements are stricken.

People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (Cal. 2021) (ameliorative legislation presumptively applies to suspended-execution sentences pending revocation appeals)
People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (Cal. 2020) (defendant on probation after suspended imposition may benefit from ameliorative amendments on later revocation appeal)
People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (when plea bargain fixed a stipulated term, court may not unilaterally excise an enhancement without remand and prosecution’s option to withdraw)
People v. Barton, 52 Cal.App.5th 1145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (when ameliorative law invalidates material terms of a stipulated sentence, plea is unenforceable and parties must be restored to pre‑plea positions)
Estrada, In re, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative statutory amendments presumptively apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)