Error and/or relief
The defendant is entitled to consideration for resentencing under section 1172.75 even though she stipulated to the upper term in her original plea agreement. The matter is remanded.
Under Mitchell, the defendant is free to raise the issue of whether section 1171 precludes the setting aside of her plea if the court modifies the sentence to something less than the stipulated sentence.
First Holding:
The defendant is entitled to the retroactive benefit of section 1170(b)’s provisions notwithstanding her agreement to a specified term as part of a plea bargain.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729
Second Holding:
The proper remedy is to remand this case and permit the defendant to pursue relief under the new benefit that SB 567 confers. On remand, the defendant may either waive or invoke the requirements of section 1170(b). If she reaffirms her acceptance of the plea bargain and enters a new waiver of section 1170(b)’s requirements, the court shall reinstate the original sentence as negotiated by the parties.
If she declines to enter that waiver, in lieu of further proceedings the parties may agree to modify the existing plea agreement to specify a midterm sentence. If the court also accepts the modification it shall sentence the defendant accordingly. If no such agreement is reached and approved, the defendant’s remedy is to withdraw her assent to the bargain. In that case the court shall set aside the plea, the matter shall proceed as to the defendant as if no plea had been entered, and the case shall be set for trial.
In keeping with footnote 9 of Mitchell, however, on our remand to the trial court, the defendant may present her argument that section 1171, enacted effective 1/1/25, provides that any modification of her sentence under ameliorative provisions shall not result in setting aside her plea.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729