People v. McKenzie, 459 P.3d 25

In three cases in 2014 McKenzie pleaded guilty to drug offenses and admitted four prior drug-related convictions that, under former Health & Safety Code §11370.2(c), each carried a consecutive 3‑year enhancement.
The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, granted five years’ probation, and ordered drug court participation on November 4, 2014.
Probation was revoked on June 1, 2016; the court imposed prison and added the four §11370.2 enhancements; McKenzie appealed from the revocation/sentence.
While his appeal was pending, the governor signed SB 180 (Oct. 11, 2017), revising §11370.2 to eliminate those enhancements; the amendment took effect Jan. 1, 2018.
The Court of Appeal, on remand from the California Supreme Court, struck the four enhancements; the Supreme Court affirmed, holding the ameliorative change applied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a defendant placed on probation (with imposition of sentence suspended) who did not timely appeal the probation order may benefit from an ameliorative statute that takes effect while he is later appealing a revocation and sentence.	The order granting probation is a "final judgment" under Penal Code §1237(a); time to appeal that order expired before the statutory change, so defendant cannot get retroactive relief.	Estrada governs: finality means the whole criminal proceeding, not limited appellate finality; probation orders have only limited finality for appeal, so the change applies because the overall proceeding was not final when the statute took effect.	The court sided with McKenzie: ameliorative statutory amendments apply when the criminal proceeding is not final in the ordinary sense; an order granting probation has only limited finality for appeal and does not bar retroactive application; the four enhancements were stricken.

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (establishes rule that ameliorative penal statutes apply if effective before conviction is final)
People v. Rossi, 18 Cal.3d 295 (1976) (applies Estrada to repeal of criminal sanctions)
People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (explains repeal requires dismissal where proceeding not finally resolved)
People v. Chavez, 4 Cal.5th 771 (2018) (probation does not terminate the criminal action; order granting probation has limited finality)
People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (discusses finality for federal certiorari timing)
In re Osslo, 51 Cal.2d 371 (1958) (explains §1237 limited purpose: makes probation orders appealable but not final for other purposes)