Tag Archives: Certificate of probable cause

Fines and fees, Gary Musings, Sentencing

Case 001000

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The sentence on the defendant’s misdemeanor counts should have been stayed under section 654 as part of the same conduct as the felony.

First Holding:

Under rule 4.412(b), a defendant is estopped from challenging his or her sentence based on section 654’s prohibition of double punishment where the defendant agreed to a specified term in prison or county jail and is sentenced to that term or a shorter one. Rule 4.412(b) codifies one of the applications of the case law rule that defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed.

But in this case, the defendant did not expressly agree to any sentencing irregularity in exchange for a benefit. The record shows that it was an open plea, meaning that no promises were made as to his sentence. The defendant agreed that he could be sentenced to up to four years in one case and six years in the other, but those terms represented the maximum permitted for the offenses regardless of any plea agreementg. He faced anything up to and including the maximum term allowed.

Authority:

PEN 654

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b)

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

People v. Velasquez (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 503

People v. Superior Court (Sanchez) (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 574–575

People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 156

People v. Henderson (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 785, 788 [an open plea is one under which there is no promise about the nature or duration of the defendant’s sentence]

Second Holding (and Gary Musings):

In Jones, the defendant agreed to plead no contest to all charges and admit the enhancement allegations in exchange for a lid below the maximum term in sentencing. The lid was not the maximum exposure Jones would otherwise face absent the plea agreement. Rather, it restricted the sentence the trial court could impose but to a term less than Jones’s maximum exposure. It was not an open plea.

In Cole, the defendant pleaded guilty on the condition that his sentence would not exceed 25 years to life, whereas he was exposed to a term of 75 years to life but for the agreed lid. It, too, was not an open plea.

Thus, in Jones and Cole, the estoppel principle described in Hester applied, because the defendants were not permitted to complain on appeal about sentences that were limited by the terms of their pleas to something lower than the maximum that could have been imposed in the absence of their agreements.

That is not the case here, as the agreement did not specify a lid. There was simply a recognition of the maximum possible sentence that could be imposed for each count, regardless of any agreement.

(Gary note: In Jones and Cole, as stated in Jones, had they a problem with their sentences, they should have attempted to withdraw their pleas in the trial court when the sentences were imposed. Though not expressed, implicit in the court’s reliance on Cole and Jones as examples where estoppel applies is the recognition that an appeal from a denied motion to withdraw a plea requires a certificate of probable cause. For a pretty good discussion of certificates of probable cause, I have included Buttram in the Authority listed below, but it was not cited by or discussed in the opinion.

(If your client wishes to appeal after entering a plea agreement of any sort, you need to research whether a certificate of probable cause is required. If there is any chance at all that the appeal would undermine any of the terms of the plea agreement, a certificate is likely required. A common myth is that a certificate is not required to appeal any errors alleged to have occurred after the plea. Don’t fall for it. Instead, the focus is on the plea agreement itself. And the requirement of a certificate of probable cause is separate from the doctrine of estoppel addressed in this opinion. In Jones, there was no disagreement that omission of the application of section 654 created an unauthorized sentence. The obstacle was that the defendant was estopped from raising the issue because of his agreement.

(Although they’re all important, one must-read case is People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, which I’ve listed below but was not cited by the court here. The defendant pleaded guilty with an agreement on the sentence. Unbeknownst to him at the time of his own sentencing, his co-defendants apparently received significantly lower sentences. He appealed, claiming his sentence was disproportionate. Because he had not sought and been issued a certificate of probable cause, the Supreme Court concluded his appeal should have been dismissed. His challenge to his sentence, even on constitutional grounds, was a challenge to his plea, and thus a certificate was required.

(Also note that, under section 1237.5(a), a certificate of probable cause can be issued only where the application for a certificate shows “reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings.”

(Although it is described as a certificate of probable cause, “it is not the trial court’s responsibility to determine if there was error in the proceedings. The trial court’s sole objective is to eliminate those appeals having no possible legal basis by refusing to issue a certificate of probable cause. See People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84, quoting People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819. Holland also reminds us (in footnote 6) that a petition for writ of mandate is the means by which one may challenge a denial of an application for certificate of probable cause. Neither Holland nor Warburton were cited in the opinion, because a certificate of probable cause was not even an issue in the case.

(Until 2022, if it appeared to the clerk of the superior court that a notice of appeal from a guilty plea required a certificate of probable cause, the clerk would mark the notice received but inoperable. To get past that hurdle, the notice would have to reflect that it is a challenge to the sentence and was not a challenge to the plea (or that it was an appeal from a guilty plea after a denial of a motion to suppress evidence on search and seizure grounds under section 1538.5. Rule 8.304(b) was amended effective 1/1/22, and now provides that “If the defendant does not file the written statement required by Penal Code section 1237.5 or the superior court denies a certificate of probable cause, the appeal will be limited to issues that do not require a certificate of probable cause.” That was a vast improvement, from our defense perspective, because at least the notice of appeal initiated an appeal, albeit only on grounds not requiring a certificate.

(All of this Gary note is triggered by the court’s comment in Jones, cited by this court as distinguishable, that a defendant facing a 654 problem on an agreed-upon sentence must deal with it at the trial court level by moving to withdraw his or her plea timely. So this Gary note is really dealing with sub-sub-nonissues that I think you should nonetheless be aware of. Think of this lengthy aside as getting more for your money. Money? We ain’t got no money! We don’t need no money. You don’t have to show me any stinking money. Oops, sorry, got carried away a bit there.)

Authority:

People v. Jones (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 735, 739

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 856-858

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290,

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773,

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68

People v. Holland (1978) 23 Cal.3d 77, 84

People v. Warburton (1970) 7 Cal.App.3d 815, 819

Third Holding:

Section 654 precludes multiple punishments for a single act or indivisible course of conduct. Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. If, on the other hand, defendant harbored multiple criminal objectives, which were independent of and not merely incidental to each other, he may be punished for each statutory violation committed in pursuit of each objective, “even though the violations shared common acts or were parts of an otherwise indivisible course of conduct.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Assad (2010) 189 Cal.App.4th 187, 200

People v. Rodriguez (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1000, 1005

Fourth Holding:

As there was no discussion at sentencing of section 654, we must affirm the sentence if an implied finding that section 654 does not apply is supported by substantial evidence. The record demonstrate that the defendant committed the offenses the misdemeanor cases with the objective to steal the contents of his victims’ vehicles. There is no evidence to support a finding that he formed a separate intent and objective for each offense for which he was sentenced. Accordingly, the sentences on the misdemeanor counts must be stayed.

Authority:

People v. Osband (1996) 13 Cal.4th 622, 730–731

People v. Coleman (1989) 48 Cal.3d 112, 162

Fifth Holding:

Separate restitution fines may be imposed for each case that are not consolidated, even if resolved jointly by plea bargain. Defendants who commit multiple crimes, and are consequently before the court in multiple cases when their pleas are taken, are properly subject to multiple fines. This straightforward application of the requirement that fines be imposed in every case serves the purpose of the state Restitution Fund, as well as the rehabilitative and deterrent functions of restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 64-66

Discretion, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000981

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court abused its discretion by denying diversion after finding that the defendant is NOT likely to commit a super strike offense.

We reverse the judgment and direct the court to vacate its order denying mental health diversion and enter a new order granting the motion unless there is evidence of changed circumstances that provide a basis for denying the motion.

First Holding:

The defendant obtained a certificate of probable cause and appealed the denial of his motion for mental health diversion. Appeal lies from the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5 [appeal may be taken after a no contest plea if the court issues a certificate of probable cause]

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

Second Holding:

We review the diversion denial order for abuse of discretion, meaning the decision is arbitrary or capricious, applied the wrong legal standard, or is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Authority:

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1147

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 795

Third Holding:

The diversion law promotes increased diversion of individuals with mental disorders to mitigate the individuals’ entry and reentry into the criminal justice system while protecting public safety. The potentially ameliorative benefit for criminal defendants who suffer from a qualifying mental disorder is balanced against protecting public safety. The law is intended to apply as broadly as possible.

Authority:

PEN 1001.35(a)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 630-631

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149

Fourth Holding:

A defendant charged with a felony may be referred to a program of mental health treatment utilizing existing inpatient or outpatient mental health resources” for up to two years. If the defendant performed satisfactorily in diversion, at the end of the period of diversion, the court shall dismiss the defendant’s criminal charges that were the subject of the criminal proceedings at the time of the initial diversion.

In other words, the arrest upon which the diversion was based shall be deemed never to have occurred. If the defendant performs unsatisfactorily in a treatment program or engages in criminal conduct, the court may reinstate criminal proceedings.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(f)(1)(A)(ii) and (C)(i), (g), and (h)

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 631

Fifth Holding:

A defendant is eligible for diversion if a mental health expert diagnoses the defendant with a qualifying mental disorder that was a significant factor in commission of the charged offense. A defendant is suitable for diversion if

(1) the expert opines that the defendant would respond to treatment;

(2) the defendant consents to diversion and waives the right to a speedy trial;

(3) the defendant agrees to comply with treatment; and

(4) the defendant will not pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

PEN 1001.36(b) and (c)

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 452

Sixth Holding:

The only disputed issue in this appeal is public safety. The Legislature defined “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” by incorporating section 1170.18. Section 1170.18(c) defines “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” as an unreasonable risk that the petitioner will commit a new violent felony listed in section 667. The relevant violent felonies in section 667 are super strikes. Burglary–the charge the defendant faced–is not a super strike.

Courts limit discretion to deny diversion on “public safety” grounds to instances where a defendant is likely to commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Moine (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 440, 449–450

People v. Williams (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 990, 1001

People v. Whitmill (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1151

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 121

People v. Graham (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 787, 798–799

Gomez v. Superior Court (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 671, 690–691

Siam v. Superior Court (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 67, 83, 87–88

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 454–455

Seventh Holding:

The Legislature is presumed to know about existing case law when it amends a statute. The Legislature amended section 1001.36 seven times between 2022 and 2026 without eliminating the reference to section 1170.18, despite the decisions cited above, which require a finding that the defendant poses a risk of committing super strikes.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1062

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 743

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Eighth Holding:

Beginning in 2027, courts applying section 1001.36 will no longer use the old definition of “unreasonable risk of danger to public safety” from section 1170.18. Instead, they will apply a new standard: “substantial and undue risk to the physical safety of another person.” Regardless of the forthcoming changes to section 1001.36, the version of the law applying to this defendant required a super strike finding.

The trial court found he did not pose a risk of committing super strikes, only that he poses an unreasonable risk of committing further residential burglaries. The court could not deny diversion based on a risk the defendfant will commit burglaries, thereby discounting the need to find public safety is imperiled by likely super strike offenses. The Legislature has specifically defined what constitutes ‘an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety’ under the statute, limiting it to the danger the defendant will commit a super strike.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 455

Ninth Holding:

Courts recognize “residual discretion” to deny diversion. However, while it is clear a trial court retains residual discretion to deny diversion even if all the threshold requirements are met, that does not mean, as the court suggested here, that it could reject a request for diversion based on an alternative meaning of public safety inconsistent with the specific statutory definition in section 1001.36(c)(4). In the guise of exercising its residual discretion, a court is not permitted to redefine public safety in a manner inconsistent with the Legislature’s expressed intent.

Authority:

Sarmiento v. Superior Court (2024) 98 Cal.App.5th 882, 896

Tenth Holding:

Reasons the court might exercise discretion to deny diversion include lack of a treatment program; a defendant’s history of failed treatment or misconduct in prior programs; or the availability of a better program for the defendant’s needs.

Authority:

People v. Tourville (2026) 120 Cal.App.5th 439, 457

People v. Qualkinbush (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 879, 889–890

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Racial Justice Act, Sentencing

Case 000913

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause, we conclude that his claim under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) is not cognizable on appeal.

We agree, however, that the abstract of judgment requires correction. So we will direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment and affirm.

First Holding:

The Legislature enacted the RJA in 2020, effective January 1, 2021—more than a year before the preliminary hearing in this case. Under the RJA, the state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.

The defendant argues that expert testimony at the preliminary hearing exhibited bias or animus towards the defendant because of the defendant’s race, ethnicity, or national origin. Alternatively, if his RJA claim is forfeited due to counsel’s failure to object below, he argues that counsel rendered ineffective assistance. Although an RJA claim may be raised on direct appeal, the gravamen of the defendant’s RJA claim is that he should be relieved of his otherwise knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea agreement as it was obtained in violation of the RJA.

Because his claim thus goes to the validity of his plea, it is not cognizable on appeal absent a certificate of probable cause.

When the judgment appealed from was obtained by the defendant’s plea of guilty or no contest, the sole exceptions to the requirement of a certificate are for appeals solely on noncertificate grounds postplea matters not challenging his plea’s validity and/or matters involving a search or seizure whose lawfulness was contested pursuant to section 1538.5.

Authority:

PEN 745

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

Second Holding:

Section 1237.5’s requirement of a certificate of probable cause should be applied in a strict manner, as it lays down a condition precedent to the taking of an appeal within its scope. Its assumption is that, as a general matter, a judgment of conviction entered on a defendant’s plea of guilty or nolo contendere does not present any issue warranting relief on appeal, and hence should not be reviewed thereon.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098

Third Holding:

The defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance arises from counsel’s performance before entry of the plea, and courts have consistently held that claims of ineffective assistance deriving from counsel’s preplea acts require a certificate.

Authority:

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1092 [deeming counsel’s failure to request a hearing on competency a certificate issue]

People v. Moore (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 90, 94 [claim that counsel was ineffective for failing to request pretrial mental health diversion requires certificate of probable cause]

People v. Stubbs (1998) 61 Cal.App.4th 243, 244–245 [challenge that counsel’s preplea performance was deficient requires a certificate of probable cause]

Fourth Holding:

Nor can we find any suggestion that the Legislature intended to exempt RJA claims from the requirements of section 1237.5.

Had the Legislature intended for RJA claims to be decided on their merits whenever raised, it would not have required RJA motions to be made as soon as practicable and would have exempted such motions from the traditional rules of appellate forfeiture.

Requiring a defendant to obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge grounds going to the legality of the proceedings after a plea is neither novel nor new, and the Legislature is deemed to be aware of existing laws and judicial constructions in effect at the time legislation is enacted.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1076

People v. Frahs (2020) 9 Cal.5th 618, 634

Fifth Holding:

The purpose for requiring a certificate of probable cause is to discourage and weed out frivolous or vexatious appeals challenging convictions following guilty and nolo contendere pleas.

Thus, a trial court must issue the certificate if the defendant’s statement under section 1237.5 presents any cognizable issue for appeal which is not clearly frivolous and vexatious. If a court refuses to issue a certificate of probable cause, the defendant may seek a writ of mandate from the appellate court.

This low bar for issuance of a certificate would not hinder defendants from validly challenging their convictions based on alleged RJA violations.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75

People v. Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676

Sixth Holding:

Because the defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review of his claims is thus limited to those issues that do not require a certificate.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains a clerical error. Although the defendant admitted a firearm enhancement under section 12022.53(c), the trial court ultimately elected to impose a lesser enhancement under section 12022.53(d), as permitted in Tirado. The abstract of judgment, however, erroneously lists a section 12022.53(c) enhancement. We therefore direct the clerk of the superior court to correct the abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Tirado (2022) 12 Cal.5th 688

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court may correct a clerical error in an abstract of judgment at any time]

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000820

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay ancillary costs and to reimburse the police department for the SART [Sexual Assault Response Team] examination costs without considering his ability to pay and while the amount of victim reimbursement had yet to be determined. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review is limited to issues occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect its validity.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court decided Kopp, which held that (1) a defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine (e.g., restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4) under the excessive fines provisions of the United States and California Constitutions; and (2) equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs (e.g., court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8).

Because defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s specific reasoning at the time of his sentencing, we conclude he must be afforded the opportunity to assert an excessive fine objection and develop a factual record on the considerations relevant to that claim.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Third Holding:

The touchstone of the excessive fines inquiry is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.

Four considerations inform that inquiry: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

Fourth Holding:

As for the $30 court operations fee and the $40 court facilities fee, Kopp held that, in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing ancillary costs in criminal cases.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 31

Fifth Holding:

Here, the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel’s request for an ability to pay hearing. Although some courts have found such error harmless where the record otherwise reflects the defendant’s earning capacity, we decline to do so here, as the People do not contend the record is sufficient to make such a determination in this case.

Furthermore, an ability to pay hearing is also required under section 1203.1h [regarding the cost of medical examinations incurred by law enforcement for the collection and preservation of evidence in sexual assault cases].

Authority:

PEN 1203.1h(b)

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1075–1077

People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139–140

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Discretion, Sentencing

Case 000668

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is unclear whether the court intended to impose as the base term the low term of 16 months or the middle term of two years, we remand for the court to clarify its intended sentence, as well as to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court stated it was imposing the low term, two years in prison. It doubled that term as it was a two-strikes sentence, and added three years for an injury enhancement, and stated the total sentence was seven years. The low term for the crime, however, carries a triad of 16 months, 2 years, or 3 years. Thus, the low term is 16 months, and two years is the middle term.

The matter must be remanded for the court to clarify whether it intended to impose the low term (in which case the sentence must be recalculated) or the middle term (in which case the sentence will remain the same as orally pronounced as two years doubled plus three years for the enhancement for a total of seven years).

We stress that, if the court indeed intended to impose the seven-year total sentence based on the middle term of two years, doing so was not an abuse of the court’s discretion considering the relevant sentencing factors considered by the court on the record. A sentence based on the low term of 16 months would also not be an abuse of the court’s sentencing discretion.

Authority:

People v. Sarmiento-Zuniga (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 1216, 1226 [trial court does not abuse its discretion by imposing the presumptive middle term rather than the low term where the court sets forth on the record the facts and reasons for choosing the sentence imposed at time of sentencing, and that decision does not fall outside the bounds of reason under applicable law and relevant facts]

Second Holding:

Though the conviction was by plea, no certificate of cause is required for the defendant to raise his challenges to the sentence in this case. Section 1237.5 provides a defendant may not appeal from a guilty or no contest plea without a certificate of probable cause for an appeal based on reasonable constitutional, jurisdictional, or other grounds going to the legality of the proceedings. Even without a certificate of probable cause, a defendant may nonetheless appeal issues related to post-plea matters, such as the sentence, that do not challenge the plea’s validity.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

Third Holding:

However, even when a defendant purports to challenge only the sentence imposed, a certificate is required if the challenge goes to an aspect of the sentence to which the defendant agreed as an integral part of a plea agreement, as such a claim is, in substance, a challenge to the validity of the plea. Thus, where a defendant enters a negotiated plea in which the parties agree the court will impose a specific, agreed-upon sentence, any challenge to that sentence is a challenge to the validity of the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause.

(Gary note: This is a direct appeal from the original sentencing. It should not be confused with an appeal from a resentencing under one of the recent ameliorative provisions, such as 1172.75. Where it is an appeal from such a resentencing, it is important to review section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, which states in subdivision (c)(3) that “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” I have not seen any instances in which there was discussion of the need for a certificate of probable cause in appeals from decisions in the ameliorative provisions context, but section 1171(c)(3) seems to me to specifically address (and countermand) those aspects of the Stamps decision regarding setting aside the plea.

(I would argue that Stamps also would not be authority to require a certificate of probable cause to appeal a ruling on the application of ameliorative provisions where there was a stipulated sentence, given the legislation that, in essence, not only doesn’t challenge the plea agreement, it specifically states that application of the ameliorative provisions will not result in the setting aside of the plea itself. As I said, I have not noticed the question of certificates of probable cause in appeals from hearings involving ameliorative sections such as–but not limited to–1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. See my comment in case 000532 for a more extensive discussion on section 1171, including the observation that the Supreme Court transferred a case with a Stamps issue back to the Court of Appeal with instructions to consider the impact of the then-recently added section 1171.)

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694

People v. Hurlic (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 50, 55

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79

Fourth Holding:

By contrast, a certificate of probable cause is not required to challenge the exercise of individualized sentencing discretion within an agreed maximum sentence, absent contrary provisions in the plea agreement, as long as the defendant is not challenging the trial court’s authority to impose a sentence within a negotiated lid or maximum.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790

People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 763

Fifth Holding:

No certificate of probable cause is needed to challenge a court’s failure to strike a prior strike where striking a strike would still result in a sentence that falls within the range contemplated by the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cole (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 850, 872

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 790-791, 777, 786-787

Sixth Holding:

The abstract must also be corrected to remove the notation “YTL” (for “years to life”), as no indeterminate life term was imposed in this case.

(Gary note: The court listed no authority for that correction, but there is plenty it could have relied on, some of which I list below.)

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000377

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In exchange for the defendant’s plea, the People dismissed nine other counts and the parties stipulated to a sentence between the range of five and 13 years in prison. On appeal, the defendant contends the trial court prejudicially erred by imposing the upper term sentence of 13 years based on aggravating factors that he did not stipulate to and were not found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a trial. We agree and reverse the judgment and remand for resentencing. The defendant may stipulate to the factors in aggravation. If he chooses not to stipulate, he may demand a trial by jury or court, at which the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the aggravating factors. Unless the defendant stipulates to the factors in aggravation, if the prosecution does not prove them at trial, the court must impose a sentence no greater than the middle term.

First Holding:

Although the failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause generally bars an appeal following a guilty plea, a certificate of probable cause is not required to raise on appeal a claim, such as the one the defendant presents here, regarding proceedings held subsequent to the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 790–791

Second Holding:

A defendant may waive the right to appeal as part of a plea bargain where the waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. A broad or general waiver of appeal rights ordinarily includes error occurring before but not after the waiver because the defendant could not knowingly and intelligently waive the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error. Thus, a waiver of appeal rights does not apply to possible future error, including sentencing error, that is outside the defendant’s contemplation and knowledge at the time the waiver is made.

Waiver is ordinarily a question of fact. The burden is on the party claiming the existence of the waiver to prove it by evidence that does not leave the matter to speculation, and doubtful cases will be resolved against a waiver. The right of appeal should not be considered waived or abandoned except where the record clearly establishes it. There is no dispute that when the defendant entered his plea he gave up his right to appeal any sentence stipulated in the plea agreement. Such a waiver may preclude an appellate challenge to the trial court’s imposition of a specific prison term that was stipulated in the plea agreement. What we must determine here, however, is whether the scope of such a waiver also includes a challenge to a trial court’s choice of a sentencing term from a stipulated range.

Authority:

People v. Patton (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 934, 940–941

People v. Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1661-1662

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 72–73, 85–86

Third Holding:

Buttram is instructive on the issue of waiver of the right to appeal. In considering this issue, the court distinguished Buttram’s case from cases involving plea agreements stipulating to a specified sentence, and found persuasive the argument that a negotiated plea term which provides for a maximum sentence, rather than a specified sentence, necessarily contemplates further adversary proceedings, in which the court must exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the bargain.

The court further reasoned that, when the parties negotiate a maximum sentence, they obviously mean something different than if they had bargained for a specific or recommended sentence. By agreeing only to a maximum sentence, the parties leave unresolved between themselves the appropriate sentence within the maximum. Finally, in determining Buttram’s appeal challenging the imposition of the maximum sentence was not precluded by his guilty plea, the court reasoned that an agreement for something other than a specified sentencing term, by its nature, contemplates that the court will choose from among a range of permissible sentences within the maximum, and that abuses of this discretionary sentencing authority will be reviewable on appeal, as they would otherwise be.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 782, 785, 790–791

Fourth Holding:

Here, the defendant stipulated to a sentencing range that set both the minimum and the maximum sentence but did not specify the exact sentence to be imposed. Nothing in the plea agreement dictates the terms by which the trial court would determine what sentence to impose from within the stipulated range. And nothing in the plea agreement stipulates that the trial court, in making its sentencing decision, would not be bound by section 1170(b), or the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which limit the ability of a trial court to impose an upper term sentence absent sufficient proof of aggravating factors.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(1) and (2)

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281 [under the Sixth Amendment, any fact that exposes a defendant to a greater potential sentence must be found by a jury, not a judge, and established beyond a reasonable doubt, not merely by a preponderance of the evidence]

Fifth Holding:

Section 1170(b) generally provides that a sentence may not exceed the middle term, except when it finds aggravating circumstances justify a higher sentence. Both section 1170(b) and the Sixth Amendment require that these aggravating factors be stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. A court does not have discretion to impose an upper term sentence unless all the aggravating factors on which it relies have been sufficiently proven.

Authority:

Cunningham v. California (2007) 549 U.S. 270, 281

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 759 [An upper term sentence may be imposed only when circumstances in aggravation justify that term, and only when the facts underlying those justifying circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial]

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1086

Sixth Holding:

The Courts of Appeal have split on the issue of whether a defendant, who stipulated to an upper term sentence pursuant to a plea agreement, is entitled to remand for consideration of the aggravating factors under section 1170, subdivision (b)(2), and the Supreme Court has granted review on this issue.

Gary LONG note: In this Sixth Holding, the appellate court is alluding to People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, although it does not actually mention Stamps. Stamps holds that if a defendant insists on taking advantage of ameliorative provisions in a case where the plea bargain specified the sentence, and the trial court changes the sentence based on those ameliorative provisions, either the prosecution or the court may set aside the original plea bargain entirely if not satisfied with the new sentence. But given a new statute, I wonder whether Stamps is still good law. (That is a “wonder if,” not a “statement of law.”) Effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 was enacted to give courts guidance on how to handle various amerliorative statutes.

Take a look at the excerpt from 1171(c)(3):

Penal Code section 1171(a): For the purposes of this section, “postconviction proceeding” means a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.

…

(c) The following shall apply for all postconviction proceedings unless there is a conflict with a more specific rule established in statute, in which case the more specific statute shall apply: … (3) Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.

…

(e) This section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding.

…

(f) This section shall not be interpreted to authorize anything prohibited by an initiative statute.

On 5/18/2026, Mitchell (shown in this list of authorities relied on in the case) was decided by the Supreme Court. People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. The Supreme Court did not rely on section 1171, but instead remanded for the procedure it outlined in Stamps–if the defendant gets what he wants, and the DA or the court is not happy with the modification, then the plea must be set aside. In its footnote 9, however, it stated,

“Shortly before oral argument, counsel for Mitchell filed a letter with this court identifying section 1171 as a new authority. Section 1171, effective January 1, 2025 … sets forth procedures governing a ‘postconviction proceeding,’ which the statute defines as ‘a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75.’ … At oral argument, counsel for Mitchell urged that this statutory definition broadly encompasses a remand to the trial court in the context of a direct appeal under the authority of section 1170(b) and Estrada. We decline to consider this argument because we have concluded that Mitchell is entitled to a remand under our established precedent in Stamps. We express no view on the applicability of section 1171 to this case or how it might affect the options described above. Mitchell may raise this issue in the Court of Appeal or the trial court in the first instance.”

I suspect the Supreme Court wanted to see how the lower courts are treating section 1171 before it chooses to weigh in. While I do not know if that IS what the Supreme Court had in mind, I think there is value in that approach from the perspective of establishing the law. When major issues are briefed by multiple attorneys in several different cases, and Courts of Appeal arrive at their decisions through their own means of arriving at a legal conclusion, it gives the broadest perspective for the Supreme Court to decide what makes the most sense. I repeat, that’s just my opinion.

I also want to point out that In People v. Montgomery (no longer a published opinion, but it was originally published at 100 Cal.App.5th 768 before the Supreme Court granted review and ultimately ordered the opinion to be depublished), the Supreme Court had before it a question on whether Stamps applied. The Court of Appeal had concluded that relief under section 1172.75 would not permit the DA or trial court from vacating the plea agreement (i.e., a NON-Stamps approach). In December 2024, just before section 1171 was to go in effect on January 1, 2025, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal in light of section 1171. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal issued an unpublished opinion in which it essentially affirmed its previous result–modification under section 1172.75 would not result in the plea being set aside in light of section 1171.

And if I may quote from Paul Harvey, “And now you know … the rest of the story.”

Authority:

People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1063, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283452 [defendant entitled to remand]

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, 381–382, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S279154 [same]

People v. Fox (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 826, 831 [same]

People v. Mitchell (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1051, 1057–1059, review granted Dec. 14, 2022, S277314 [defendant not entitled to remand]

People v. Sallee (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 330, 340–341, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S278690 [same]

People v. Kelly (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 1, 4, review granted Mar. 22, 2023, S278503 [same]

Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000142

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant contends the trial court could not impose a more severe punishment than was contemplated in the plea agreement without first giving him an advisement of such a possibility prior to taking his plea, or without an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Finding merit in the contention, we will reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.

First Holding:

The plea bargain did not contemplate that a failure to return for sentencing would result in a higher sentence than specified in the plea bargain. At the conclusion of taking the plea, the court advised the defendant that he would be released from custody on a Cruz waiver, and if he failed to appear, the court would impose a higher term upon his apprehension. The defendant agreed to the waiver. He failed to appear, and on his apprehension he was sentenced to the upper term rather than the agreed-on middle term. This was error.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1249

Second Holding:

When the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea. If the court approves of the plea, it shall inform the defendant prior to the making of the plea that (1) its approval is not binding, (2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in the light of further consideration of the matter, and (3) in that case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea if the defendant desires to do so. The court shall also cause an inquiry to be made of the defendant to satisfy itself that the plea is freely and voluntarily made, and that there is a factual basis for the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

Third Holding:

A defendant may expressly waive the right to withdraw the plea. But any such waiver would have to be obtained at the time of the trial court’s initial acceptance of the plea, and it must be knowing and intelligent.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5

Fourth Holding:

A defendant who fails to appear for sentencing does not breach the terms of the plea agreement but instead commits the separate offense of failure to appear, and thus a defendant who fails to appear does not lose the protections of section 1192.5. A plea agreement may validly provide for a specified greater term to be imposed if the defendant fails to appear for sentencing or fails to satisfy other terms and conditions of the agreement. When the parties themselves agree as part of the plea bargain to a specific sanction for nonappearance, the court need not permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea but may invoke the bargained-for sanction.

Authority:

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219, 1222-1224

Fifth Holding:

Absent compliance with the section 1192.5 procedure, the defendant’s constitutional right to the benefit of his bargain is not waived by a mere failure to object at sentencing. There can be no waiver of a constitutional right absent an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege. No less should a court presume from mere silence that defendant is waiving implementation of the consideration that induced him to waive his constitutional rights. Thus, when the trial court fails to give a section 1192.5 admonition, the defendant’s failure to object at sentencing does not waive his claim on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 589

People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024-1025

People v. Cruz (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 61, 65

Sixth Holding:

A certificate of probable cause is not required if the issue on appeal arose after the entry of the plea and does not affect the validity of the plea. Defendant did not agree, as part of the plea agreement, to the six-year term. That term was imposed after his plea. Under these circumstances, a certificate of probable cause is not required.

Authority:

People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651

Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing

Case 000006

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

The trial court did not actually dismiss a prior conviction it had agreed to dismiss under the bargain. The court modified the judgment by dismissing the prior conviction in keeping with the bargain. (It does not appear that the defendant was sentenced to time on the prior; simply the court forgot to dismiss it on sentencing.)

First Holding:

The appellate court reviews the record as it existed at time of the lower court’s ruling.

Authority:

In re Kenneth D. (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1087, 1102 [appellate court reviews record as it existed when lower court ruled]

People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267 [ineffective assistance must be demonstrated on appellate record]

Second Holding:

A certificate of probable cause is required to challenge on appeal a no contest plea on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

Rules of Court rule 8.304(b)

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 694-695

People v. Richardson (2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 574, 596 [pre-plea ineffective assistance of counsel]

Third Holding:

A claim of ineffective assistance of counsel requires not only a showing of deficient performance but also prejudice–a reasonable probability, sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome, that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceedings would have been different.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687-688

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 900

Fourth Holding:

Where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, the court will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Nguyen (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1015, 1051

Fifth Holding:

Senate Bill No. 567 does not apply where defendant stipulated to upper term [this issue may still be pending in the Supreme Court].

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1051, review granted Dec. 14, 2022, S277314 ]Although Senate Bill No. 567’s amendments to section 1170 apply to this case, defendant cannot benefit from them because he stipulated to the upper term]

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, review granted April 26, 2023, S279154 [disagreeing with Mitchell]

Sixth Holding:

Where not charged with substituted enhancement, the court has no authority to make findings that change the character of the crime or increase sentence.

Authority:

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1440 [because the defendant was not charged with a substituted enhancement, the trial court was without authority to make findings that change the character of the crime or enhancement so as to increase the sentence]

Seventh Holding:

The court must proceed in keeping with Penal Code section 1192.5 and abide by terms of agreement. Because the trial court may not proceed with regard to the plea in a manner other than as specified in the approved plea (§ 1192.5), the trial court’s silence at the sentencing hearing regarding the dismissal of the strike allegation was not an exercise of judicial discretion, but rather a mistake in creating a record of the judgment.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d 702, 705