People v. Gezzer CA5

INTRODUCTION

On November 21, 2019, we filed our original opinion in this matter. We ruled that appellant Robert Steven Gezzer could not benefit from changes in the law that had occurred after he had received a split sentence in 2014. He had started to serve that sentence, and he did not appeal within 60 days. (People v. Gezzer (Nov. 21, 2019, F076566) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2020, our Supreme Court directed us to reconsider this cause in light of People v. McKenzie (2020) 9 Cal.5th 40 (McKenzie). After vacating our prior decision and reviewing McKenzie, we again concluded that appellant could not benefit from the changes in law.1 (People v. Gezzer (Oct. 5, 2020, F076566) [nonpub. opn.].) Subsequently, however, our Supreme Court issued People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671 (Esquivel). This matter was again remanded to us, and our high court asked us to reconsider this matter in light of Esquivel. Following Esquivel, the parties agree, as do we, that appellant benefits from the changes in law. Consequently, we will direct the trial court to strike the three-year sentencing enhancement imposed pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (c), and the one-year…