People v. Quirino CA4/3

DISCUSSION

The issue is whether section 1172.75 entitles Quirino to a resentencing hearing notwithstanding the stricken prison priors. Rhodius did not consider this specific issue. (Rhodius, supra, 17 Cal.5th at p. 1066, fn. 2.) That case involved a stayed, rather than stricken, prison prior. (Id. at p. 1054.) A pre-Rhodius case, People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, review granted October 23, 2024, S286987 (Espino), addressed the issue here. Espino held section 1172.75 applies to not only imposed and stayed enhancements but also stricken enhancements. (Id. at p. 193.) Following Espino and pending guidance from the California Supreme Court, we find

2 there is no difference between stayed and stricken prison priors for purposes of sentencing. An enhancement found to be true becomes part of the judgment and must be addressed as part of the sentencing process. (See id. at pp. 197–198, 201.) Furthermore, an appellate court recently found Espino’s reasoning was “bolstered by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Rhodius.” (People v. Cota (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1118, 1133.)

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order denying Quirino’s petition for recall and resentencing is reversed…