If a court grants your habeas petition and cuts part of your sentence, do newer sentencing laws now apply to the rest of it? On August 17, 2026, the California Supreme Court said not always.
The Question the Court Answered
The case is People v. Esquivias. It asked what happens when a habeas court fixes one piece of a final sentence. Does that fix reopen the whole sentence, so every newer law that lowers punishment now applies? Or can the court change only the piece the petition was about?
In a 5 to 2 decision written by Justice Groban, the court held that the habeas court could strike only the part at issue. It did not have to give a full resentencing. Justice Evans wrote a dissent, and Justice Liu joined it.
How a Late Petition Reached the Supreme Court
In 2015, a Los Angeles County jury convicted the petitioner of first degree murder and other crimes. His sentence included firearm enhancements that added 25 years to life plus 13 years and 4 months.
Senate Bill No. 620 took effect on January 1, 2018. It gave judges the power to strike firearm enhancements that used to be mandatory. His case was not yet final when that law took effect. It became final on January 30, 2018.
Under In re Estrada (1965), new laws that lessen punishment are presumed to apply to cases that are not yet final. So he had a claim. But no one raised it on appeal.
About four years later, he filed a habeas petition on his own in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The petition raised one claim: he wanted the court to use its new power under Senate Bill No. 620.
The court struck the firearm enhancements. That cut his sentence by 38 years and 4 months. He then argued that he was owed a full resentencing under newer laws, including a 2022 law that narrowed gang enhancements. He said that would have cut more than 40 additional years. The judge said no and limited the hearing to the firearm claim.
Why the Majority Allowed a Partial Fix
The majority relied on a statute that is more than 150 years old. Penal Code section 1484 tells a habeas court to resolve the case “as the justice of the case may require.”
The court called habeas corpus an equitable remedy. That means the judge shapes the fix to fit the claim. The court said habeas relief is not an “all-or-nothing” choice between no relief and a full resentencing.
The court gave several reasons:
- His original sentence was lawful when imposed. It was not unconstitutional or unauthorized.
- His petition raised only one claim, and the court granted relief on that claim.
- His case was already final when the newer laws took effect. Had he raised the firearm issue on appeal in 2018, he could not have used laws passed years later.
- The text of Senate Bill No. 620 does not call for a full resentencing.
The court also noted that some resentencing statutes do require judges to apply all changes in law. Penal Code sections 1172.1 and 1172.75 both say so. Section 1172.75 tells the court to “apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion.” Senate Bill No. 620 has no such language. As the court put it, the Legislature knows how to provide for full resentencing.
The court said its ruling is limited to the unusual facts of this case.
Why the Dissent Disagreed
Justice Evans, joined by Justice Liu, would have applied the newer gang law.
The dissent pointed to People v. Padilla (2022), which held that habeas relief can make a final judgment nonfinal again. It also cited People v. Lopez (2025), where the court rejected the idea that only part of a sentence can be final.
The dissent said the full resentencing rule is “not a rule of equity, but a rule of jurisdiction.” In its view, the only way to strike the enhancements was to hold a new sentencing hearing. Once that happened, the dissent reasoned, the whole sentence should have been open again.
When a Full Resentencing Still Happens
This ruling does not end full resentencing in habeas cases. The majority drew clear lines.
In Padilla, a person sentenced as a juvenile to life without parole had that sentence vacated because it was unconstitutional. When a habeas court vacates a judgment and orders a new sentencing hearing, the court explained, the old judgment can no longer be final. In that setting, newer laws can apply.
Some resentencing statutes also build in a full review. Under Penal Code section 1172.1, a court that recalls a sentence must resentence the person “in the same manner as if they had not previously been sentenced.” That section also requires the court to apply changes in law that reduce sentences.
So the type of claim matters a great deal. A claim that the sentence itself was unconstitutional may lead to a fresh start. A late request for a judge to use new discretion on one enhancement may not.
What This Ruling Means for Your Next Petition
For anyone weighing post-conviction relief, this decision offers several practical lessons:
- Raise sentencing claims on direct appeal when you can. The court noted that this claim would usually have been raised on appeal, where the presumption for new laws applies directly.
- Timing matters. The court said the Attorney General could have asked the court to deny this petition as untimely.
- A habeas petition is limited to the claims it raises. The court will look at the petition as filed, not at new claims raised later in a reply.
- Check every path to resentencing. Some statutes, like sections 1172.1 and 1172.75, require the court to apply newer laws. A habeas claim may not.
- A sentencing claim like this one generally belongs first in the superior court that imposed the sentence.
Whether a person works with a California habeas corpus lawyer, a criminal appeal lawyer, or neither, the first step is to identify which path fits the case and what that path can and cannot do.
When to Call Mines Law Firm
We handle auto accident injury claims, and are accepting clients for those. If you are injured in an auto accident, that is when you should call us at 888-700-0093.
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING. This article is for general information only and is not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case depends on its own facts, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Responsible attorney: Jasmine Mines, Mines Law Firm, 468 N. Camden Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, CA 90210.