Tag Archives: Pleas and plea bargains

Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001012

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously composed the defendant’s eight-year prison sentence.

First Holding:

The parties agree that the trial court erred in imposing the defendant’s eight-year term as a three-year term under Vehicle Code section 10851, doubled pursuant to the Three Strikes law, plus a two-year enhancement pursuant to section 666.5. Section 666.5 is not an enhancement. It is an alternative sentencing scheme. The sentencing triad for section 666.5 is two, three, and four years.

Authority:

PEN 666.5

People v. Lee (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 861, 869

Second Holding:

The parties and the trial court intended and agreed that the defendant would be sentenced to the upper term of four years pursuant to section 666.5, doubled to eight years pursuant to the Three Strikes law if he failed to comply with the conditions of the plea agreement. Because the court made a judicial error in rendering the judgment and not a clerical error, we remand the matter to the trial court to resentence the defendant pursuant to the plea agreement.

Authority:

People v. Boyd (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 56, 63

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000997

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The approved plea agreement provided for dismissal of count II, but that count was not dismissed at sentencing. Further, the court failed to impose a suspended parole revocation fine matching the amount imposed as the restitution fine.

The judgment is modified to dismiss count II and impose a $300 parole revocation fine, which shall be suspended unless parole is revoked. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect this modification. However, because the abstract of judgment already reflects the $300 suspended parole revocation fine, no amendment of that document is necessary.

First Holding:

When a guilty or no contest plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80

Second Holding:

When the trial court imposes a sentence that includes a period of parole, and it also imposes a restitution fine, a matching suspended parole revocation fine must be imposed. Omission of a mandatory parole revocation fine is an unauthorized sentence that we can correct on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853

Duty of counsel, Duty of the court, Immigration, Plea bargains, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000994

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his guilty plea conviction under section 1473.7, because the defendant demonstrated entitlement to relief.

First Holding:

In response to the absence of a legal remedy for individuals who are no longer in custody but find themselves facing unanticipated immigration consequences resulting from a guilty or no contest plea entered years earlier, the Legislature added section 1473.7 to the Penal Code, effective January 1, 2017. The statute was subsequently amended to broaden eligibility for relief beyond the entry of a plea.

In relevant part, the statute now provides that individuals may file a motion for relief from a conviction or sentence on the basis that the conviction or sentence is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging the moving party’s ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence. Relief is not contingent upon establishing ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 522-523

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 12-13

Second Holding:

A defendant must satisfy three statutory requirements to be eligible to seek relief from a legally invalid conviction or sentence under section 1473.7(a)(1). The movant must show he is no longer in criminal custody, and the conviction or sentence being challenged is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of an application for an immigration benefit, lawful status, or naturalization. The motion must also be timely.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 13

Third Holding:

To prevail under section 1473.7, a defendant must demonstrate that his conviction is legally invalid due to prejudicial error damaging his or her ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential adverse immigration consequences of a conviction or sentence.

The defendant must first show that he did not meaningfully understand the immigration consequences of his plea.

Next, the defendant must show that his misunderstanding constituted prejudicial error.

Prejudical error means demonstrating a reasonable probability that the defendant would have rejected the plea if the defendant had correctly understood its actual or potential immigration consequences.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529

Fourth Holding:

We evaluate prejudicial error under the totality of the circumstances.

Factors particularly relevant to this inquiry include the defendant’s ties to the United States, the importance the defendant placed on avoiding deportation, the defendant’s priorities in seeking a plea bargain, and whether the defendant had reason to believe an immigration-neutral negotiated disposition was possible.

The defendant’s probability of obtaining a more favorable outcome if he had rejected the plea and the difference between the bargained-for term and the likely term if he were convicted at trial are also relevant.

These factors are not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is a prerequisite to relief.

A defendant must provide objective evidence to corroborate factual assertions. Objective evidence includes facts provided by declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the defendant’s immigration concerns or interactions with counsel, and evidence of the charges the defendant faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320-321

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 529-530

People v. Martinez (2013) 57 Cal.4th 555, 564

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 358

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we apply independent review to evaluate whether a defendant has demonstrated a reasonable probability that he would have rejected the plea offer had he understood its immigration consequences.

We exercise independent judgment to determine whether the facts satisfy the rule of law, and defer to the trial court’s factual determinations if they are based on the credibility of witnesses the superior court heard and observed.

However, when, as in this case, the trial court’s findings derive entirely from written declarations and other documents, the trial court and the reviewing court are in the same position, and no deference is owed.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 527-528

Sixth Holding:

The focus of this inquiry is the defendant’s own error. Thus, the key is the mindset of the defendant and not what an objectively reasonable person would have understood under the circumstances.

The defendant is the only one with direct access to his state of mind, but a defendant’s assertion as to his or her state of mind is not accepted at face value by courts evaluating a section 1473.7 motion. Such assertions must be corroborated with objective evidence.

A party seeking relief under section 1473.7 is not required to provide the declaration of plea counsel.

Authority:

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 16-17

People v. Mejia (2019) 36 Cal.App.5th 859, 871

People v. Alatorre (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 747, 769

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Seventh Holding:

The standard section 1016.5 advisement—given to all criminal defendants in California who plead guilty to any offense other than an infraction—that his or her criminal conviction may have adverse immigration consequences does not bar a defendant from seeking relief from his plea on grounds of mistake or ignorance based on immigration consequences. Thus, the fact the superior court advised defendant pursuant to section 1016.5 does not resolve the matter against defendant.

Authority:

People v. Patterson (2017) 2 Cal.5th 885, 889, 895

People v. Lopez (2021) 66 Cal.App.5th 561, 577-578

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 320

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 962

Eighth Holding:

Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation on the part of defense counsel to affirmatively advise a defendant of the immigration consequences of a conviction. Rather, most courts had determined that no such duty existed.

As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.

(Gary note:  I think we all know what the court means by “Prior to Padilla, there was no Sixth Amendment obligation ….”  But I think a more accurate statement would be something like, “Padilla was the first pronouncement by the United States Supreme Court recognizing that the Sixth Amendment places an obligation on the part of defense counsel to ….”  The Sixth Amendment was certainly not amended to add any provision generating a new obligation.  The Sixth Amendment has been around for centuries, unchanged.  It was only its import that hadn’t been seen in the past, at least by the High Court.

(The court’s phrasing as I’ve set out in the Ninth Holding tracks what I’m saying.

(I mention this because I think sometimes it is important to argue that something is NOT new law, and that it has BEEN the law all along, notwithstanding that it had not previously been understood to be the law.  Why is that important?  It can make the difference in whether a court recognizes that your client’s rights were violated, even though it was only through a later appellate analysis that the nature of the violation was discovered.  We don’t want the court to assume that, because no court had seen it before, your client is not entitled to its benefit.

(There have been decisions, of course, that decline to revisit cases where, had the law been understood at the time, there would have been a different result.  But that is generally related to the principle of finality of judgment and the jurisdiction of the court to act on the case.  While not directly the same, think of the Estrada presumption of retroactivity of ameliorative changes in the law to those whose judgments are not final, in the absence of clear intent that the change was to be applied prospectively only.  

(Just sayin’.

(Of course, with respect to Padilla, the practical effect is that yes, the Sixth Amendment imposes the obligation on the attorney to provide the advice, but the failure to do so prior to Padilla is not tantamount to ineffective assistance of counsel as that principle has been described in the past.  As the court in this case said, relying on In re Grinder, “As a general rule, a failure to anticipate changes in the law is not considered ineffective assistance of counsel.”

(Was there a change in the law?  Or simply a change in the understanding of the Sixth Amendment?  Of course, the opposition might argue that court pronouncements dictate what is the law, and therefore they represent the law, and thererfore it wasn’t until Padilla that the Sixth Amendment created the obligation.  An interesting debate, or not, but for another time.)  

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

Chaidez v. United States (2013) 568 U.S. 342, 353

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 17

In re Grinder (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 845, 872

Ninth Holding:

Here, defendant entered his plea 15 years before the United States Supreme Court held in Padilla that the Sixth Amendment requires defense counsel to provide affirmative and competent advice to noncitizen defendants regarding the potential immigration consequences of their criminal cases. As such, defendant’s attestation that his attorney did not advise him about the immigration consequences of his plea is consistent with the state of the law at that time.

(Gary note: The appellate court examined and analyzed extensively many facts in the record from which it concluded that, based primarily on the principles I have extracted in this summary, the defendant was entitled to relief because his plea was not entered knowingly and intelligently within the contemplation of section 1473.7. I have omitted those details, some of which included citations to other cases apparently relevant to those details. Since this was an unpublished decision and cannot be cited for comparison, and since this is supposed to be a summary and not a copy of the entire decision, I have to stop about here.)

Authority:

PEN 1016.2

People v. Carrillo (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 1, 18

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 307–312

 

Duty of the court, Jury trial, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000993

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to properly advise the defendant of his right to a jury trial on certain aggravating factors, and that his admissions to those factors were not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Accordingly, we vacate appellant’s sentence and remand the matter for a full resentencing.

Before the matter was submitted to the jury, appellant admitted the allegations of circumstances in aggravation under California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)(2) through (5). During the admission colloquy, the trial court advised appellant that he only had the right to a court trial on the truth of the allegations. We agree with the defendant that this advisement was incorrect, and that the record does not establish that his admissions were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

The factors in question under rule 4.421(b) are, in essence:
(2) The defendant’s prior convictions are numerous and of increasing seriousness;
(3) The defendant has served prior terms in prison;
(4) The defendant was on probation or parole when he committed the alleged offenses; and
(5) The defendant’s prior performance on probation and parole was unsatisfactory.

First Holding:

A criminal defendant has the right to a jury trial on the facts underlying aggravating factors used to justify imposition of an upper term sentence under section 1170(b). That right is not merely a state law entitlement, but is constitutionally required for all aggravating facts.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 757

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1078

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(3) provides a limited exception for prior convictions, permitting the court to consider them based on a certified record of conviction without submitting the prior convictions to a jury.

Our Supreme Court has clarified, however, that the exception is narrowly limited to the bare fact of a prior conviction and its elements.

Applying this principle, Wiley held that jury findings were required for aggravating factors based on increasingly serious prior convictions and unsatisfactory prior performance on probation or parole.

Authority:

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1082

Third Holding:

Because the Sixth Amendment affords a defendant the right to a jury trial on alleged aggravating factors, a valid admission to those factors requires the same advisements and waivers required for a stipulation to a prior conviction.

This includes advisement and waiver of the defendant’s Boykin-Tahl rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront adverse witnesses, and the privilege against self-incrimination.  A defendant must also be advised of the penal consequences of the admission.

If the trial court fails to properly advise the defendant of these rights or consequences, reversal is required unless the record affirmatively shows, under the totality of the circumstances, that the admission was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Authority:

People v. Kinnear (2025) 116 Cal.App.5th 1116, 1127

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 745–746

Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238

In re Tahl (1969) 1 Cal.3d 122

People v. Cross (2015) 61 Cal.4th 164, 170

People v. Mosby (2004) 33 Cal.4th 353, 361–365

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000963

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Having been found in violation of probation and the previously imposed but suspended prison term having been ordered executed, the defendant is entitled to challenge the upper term that he agreed to in 2021 before section 1170 was amended to provide that the upper term may be imposed only on aggravating factor stipulated to or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury.

If the prosecution or court are not satisfied with the resulting modification, the plea shall be set aside and the parties shall be restored to their status prior to the plea agreement.

First Holding:

Effective 1/1/2022, SB 567 amended section 1170 to make the middle term the presumptive sentence and permit a trial court to impose the upper term only when there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

PEN 1170

Second Holding:

In Mitchell, the California Supreme Court resolved the effect of section 1170(b) on negotiated dispositions, holding that SB 567’s amendments to the statute apply retroactively to sentences imposed pursuant to stipulated plea agreements in cases that were not final on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 735, 737–738

Third Holding:

We therefore reverse the judgment because the facts relied on to justify the upper term were not stipulated to or proven beyond a reasonable doubt at a jury or court trial. The defendantl may reaffirm the bargain and waive the requirements now applicable under section 1170(b), or he may withdraw his plea and return the parties to a pre-plea posture, with the prosecutor bearing its burden of proof. What he may not do, however, is unilaterally obtain a reduction of his agreed-upon upper term sentence to the middle term.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, 735, 749

Gary note:

(The opinion made no mention of Penal Code section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, even though the Mitchell opinion made an observation in a footnote. There are several unpublished cases that have held that section 1171 will NOT result in a rescission of the plea agreement, in light of the language in 1171(c)(3) that says, “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement.” (You can search for the unpublished opinions I have posted, where I may have added additional commentary.  Maybe try the search term “1171” or “PEN 1171” with or without quotation marks.)

(On May 18, 2026, the Supreme Court decided People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729. It was an appeal directly from the original sentencing under section 1170, and did not arise out of a ruling on the application of any other ameliorative statutes. The question was “Does Senate Bill No. 567 (Stats. 2021, ch. 731), which limits a trial court’s discretion to impose upper term sentences, apply retroactively to defendants sentenced pursuant to stipulated plea agreements?”

(The court concluded that it does apply (section 1170 as amended by SB 567), but it remanded with the Stamps remedy–that if the defendant opts to claim the benefits of section 1170 and the resulting sentence is something the DA or the court are not happy with, the plea will be set aside and the parties restored to their pre-plea bargain status.

(But it contained a very important footnote:

(“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 (Stats. 2024, ch. 964, § 2) 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.” (§ 1171, subd. (a).) 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.”

(On remand, the Court of Appeal issued its new opinion–this time unpublished–in which it further remanded the case to the trial court for resolution in light of the Supreme Court decision. And in that unpublished opinion, it stated, “We now find that Mitchell’s section 1171 arguments should be resolved first by the trial court. Accordingly, we remand this action to that court for further proceedings consistent with Mitchell II [the Supreme Court decision]. On remand, Mitchell may raise her contentions regarding section 1171.”)

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000919

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

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]

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000888

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage. There could be no rational tactical reason for defense counsel to concede that the defendant was ineligible.

First Holding:

In 2018, the Legislature amended the definition of felony murder in section 189 to restrict culpability for murder to actual killers, aiders and abettors, and anyone who was a major participant in the underlying felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life unless the victim was a peace officer.

At the same time, the Legislature added section 1170.95, later renumbered to section 1172.6, which allows a person convicted of felony murder or murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine, to file a petition with the court that sentenced the petitioner to have the petitioner’s murder conviction vacated and to be resentenced on any remaining counts, if, among other things, the petitioner could not presently be convicted of murder because of the changes to the law wrought by SB 1437. I

f the petition makes a prima facie case for relief the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. At this hearing, the People have the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner is guilty of murder under the law as it exists now, with the trial judge sitting as factfinder.

Authority:

PEN 189

PEN 1172.6

Second Holding:

When conducting a prima facie review, the court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

If the record of conviction does not conclusively demonstrate that the defendant engaged in the requisite acts and had the requisite intent to be convicted on a theory of murder that remains valid, denying relief at the prima facie stage is improper.

A preliminary hearing transcript is part of the record of conviction for these purposes, and courts may rely on them when reviewing petitions at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 975

People v. Barboza (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 955, 965-966

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 568 [there is no dispute that the record of conviction the parties may consult at the prima facie stage includes a preliminary hearing transcript preceding a guilty plea.]

Third Holding:

We review the trial court’s decision at the prima facie stage de novo. Reviewing de novo, we therefore find that the defendant established a prima facie case for relief, and the trial court should not have denied his petition for failing to do so.

Authority:

People v. Bodely (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 1193, 1200

Fourth Holding:

At the hearing, the defendant’s counsel stated that he was appointed to determine eligibility pursuant to 1172.6, and concluded the defendant was not eligible.

The defendant’s counsel cited cases involving defendants who made a prima facie showing for the proposition that a guilty plea is a judicial admission. That it’s an admission that he was, in fact, the killer, and therefore the defendant could not state a prima facie case for relief. Based on this, the court summarily denied the defndant’s petition.

Contrary to the court’s and counsel’s understanding below, a guilty plea (without more) is not an admission to any particular theory of guilt, and therefore cannot render a defendant ineligible for relief as a matter of law.

Moreover, the record of conviction, including the preliminary hearing transcript, does not contain any facts definitively foreclosing the defendant’s eligibility for relief. It is undisputed that the defendant was not the sole participant in either the burglary or murder of the victim.

Nor is there any clear evidence the defendant was the actual killer—indeed, the only evidence presented suggests that the co-defendant, not not the defendant, was the actual killer.

Authority:

People v. Eynon (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 967, 977 [By pleading guilty, the defendant admitted every element of the charged offense but the defendant did not admit facts supporting liability on any particular theory. Accordingly, the guilty plea did not constitute an admission that the defendant acted with malice.]

Fifth Holding:

The People assert the doctrine of invited error. The doctrine of invited error is an application of the estoppel principle and applies when a party invites the court or the jury to commit error.

Under the doctrine of invited error, when a party by its own conduct induces the commission of error, it may not claim on appeal that the judgment should be reversed because of that error. It is designed to prevent an accused from gaining a reversal on appeal because of an error made by the trial court at his behest.

However, for the doctrine to apply, it must be clear that counsel acted for tactical reasons and not out of ignorance or mistake. In order to apply the doctrine, the record must show only that counsel made a conscious, deliberate tactical choice, it need not additionally show counsel correctly understood all the legal implications of the tactical choice.

In other words, the invited error doctrine applies so long as counsel made a conscious, tactical choice even if such choice was based on a misunderstanding of the law.  We conclude that on this record defense counsel’s decision to concede that the defendant is ineligible for relief was not a deliberate tactical choice.

Put simply, there was no possible tactical purpose for counsel’s decision to concede the matter. The defendant did not stand to receive any possible benefit from this concession, and therefore the decision to concede could only have been a genuine mistake.

Authority:

People v. Midell (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 1060, 1072

Mary M. v. City of Los Angeles (1991) 54 Cal.3d 202, 212

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

People v. Cooper (1991) 53 Cal.3d 771, 83

People v. Duncan (1991) 53 Cal.3d 955, 970

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610, 658

Sixth Holding:

Even if the invited error doctrine did apply, we would still reach the merits.

Because a deliberate tactical choice by counsel may be an incompetent one, courts have recognized that defendants barred from raising error under the invited error doctrine may instead claim they received ineffective assistance of counsel.

However, courts may also address the merits of an otherwise procedurally barred claim in order to avert any claim of inadequate assistance of counsel. T

hus, even if we concluded the defendant had invited the error he now complains of, we would exercise our discretion to reach the merits anyway to avoid the same result obtaining through an ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

We reverse the order denying the defendant’s section 1172.6 petition and remand. On remand, we direct the trial court to issue an order to show cause and to conduct further proceedings as required under section 1172.6.

Authority:

People v. Wader (1993) 5 Cal.4th 610,

People v. Yarbrough (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 303, 310

Appellate Principles, Discretion, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000863

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the sentence by vacating the trial court’s stay of punishment for the firearm enhancement and instead strike the punishment.

First Holding:

After taking the defendant’s admission to the firearm enhancement, the trial court did not impose additional punishment for it. Instead, the trial court incorrectly imposed and stayed the low term of three years for the firearm enhancement. Generally, a court has no discretion to stay an enhancement.

The court must either impose or strike the enhancement. Under section 1385(b)(1), the court may also strike the punishment, instead of the enhancement itself. The trial court’s stay of the enhancement resulted in an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

PEN 1385(b)(1)

People v. Haykel (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 146, 151

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364-365

People v. Eberhardt (1986) 186 Cal.App.3d 1112, 1122–1123

People v. Bradley (1998) 64 Cal.App.4th 386, 391

Second Holding:

A resentencing hearing is unnecessary because the correction does not require resolving a factual dispute or exercising discretion. The trial court did not intend to dismiss the firearm enhancement because an admission to it was required by the plea agreement. Nor did the trial court intend to impose additional punishment for the firearm enhancement.

The record clearly supports the court’s intention to strike the punishment for the enhancement had it known a stay was not possible. We accordingly modify the sentence by vacating the trial court’s order that imposed and stayed the three-year term for the firearm enhancement as to count 1. We further modify the sentence to comply with the terms of the plea agreement by striking the punishment for the firearm enhancement pursuant to section 1385(b)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 294

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1473

Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000804

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the defendant pleaded guilty, the agreement was that he would be placed on probation, and if he violated probation and it was revoked, he would be sentenced to prison for three years. It was error on revocation of probation for the court to sentence him to four years.

First Holding:

The process of plea negotiation contemplates an agreement negotiated by the People and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he were convicted of all offenses charged.

This more lenient disposition of the charges is secured in part by prosecutorial consent to the imposition of such clement punishment, by the People’s acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense than that charged, either in degree or kind, or by the prosecutor’s dismissal of one or more counts of a multi-count indictment or information.

Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and prosecution. But implicit in all of this is a process of bargaining between the adverse parties to the case—the People represented by the prosecutor on one side, the defendant represented by his counsel on the other—which bargaining results in an agreement between them.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929–930

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 970

Second Holding:

The prosecutor is the only party authorized to negotiate on behalf of the state, and the trial court cannot substitute itself in place of the prosecutor. Such judicial activity would contravene express statutory provisions requiring the prosecutor’s consent to the proposed disposition, would detract from the judge’s ability to remain detached and neutral in evaluating the voluntariness of the plea and the fairness of the bargain to society as well as to the defendant, and would present a substantial danger of unintentional coercion of defendants who may be intimidated by the judge’s participation in the matter.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930

Third Holding:

Because a negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, it is interpreted according to general contract principles. Acceptance of the agreement binds the court and the parties to the agreement. [When a guilty or nolo contendere plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930-931

Fourth Holding:

Although a plea agreement does not divest the court of its inherent sentencing discretion, a judge who has accepted a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. Should the court consider the plea bargain to be unacceptable, its remedy is to reject it, not to violate it, either directly or indirectly. Once the court has accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, it lacks jurisdiction to alter the terms of a plea bargain so that it becomes more favorable to a defendant unless, of course, the parties agree.

For its part, of course, the trial court may decide not to approve the terms of a plea agreement negotiated by the parties. If the court does not believe the agreed-upon disposition is fair, the court ‘need not approve a bargain reached between the prosecution and the defendant, but it cannot change that bargain or agreement without the consent of both parties.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

Fifth 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.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5(b)

Sixth Holding:

Thus, a court may not modify the terms of a plea agreement while otherwise leaving the agreement intact, nor may the court effectively withdraw its approval by later modifying the terms of the agreement it had approved. When a court accepts a plea bargain, it must impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1107

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

People v. Cunningham (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1047

Seventh Holding:

It is well settled that a criminal defendant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court aggravated a sentence based on items contained in a probation report that were erroneous or otherwise flawed. The defendant did not object to the recommendation in the probation report that he be sentenced to four years, nor did he object when the court imposed that term.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351–352

People v. Victorian (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 954, 958

Eighth Holding:

Defendant raises the alternate argument that the trial attorney was prejudicially ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s imposition of the four-year term. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient—it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness—and that defendant was thereby prejudiced.

Such prejudice exists only if the record shows that but for counsel’s defective performance there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance on appeal the record must affirmatively disclose the lack of a rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission.

Authority:

People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 734

Ninth Holding:

In the usual case, where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we 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. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254

Tenth Holding:

It appears that between the time of the plea agreement in 2022 and the revocation proceedings in 2025, the trial court and the parties were unaware of the terms and conditions of the plea agreement, that the court did not withdraw its approval of the plea agreement, the plea agreement was never modified, and the probation report’s recommendation of the upper term violated the terms and conditions of the plea agreement as agreed to by the prosecution and defendant in 2022.

Instead, it appears the probation officer unilaterally recommended the upper term of four years without consideration of the plea agreement for the midterm of three years.

Defendant is not seeking a sentence outside the terms of the plea agreement but seeking to enforce the plea agreement. When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Therefore, we direct modification of the abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence agreed to by the parties and approved by the trial court in 2022—that defendant should be sentenced to the midterm of three years.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80

 

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000792

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170(d), because (a) it incorrectly concluded that section 1171 barred resentencing where the original sentence was agreed on by the parties, and (b) it incorrectly believed that the parties had originally agreed to the sentence imposed. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not consider whether, despite the availability of youthful offender parole, the defendant’s determinate sentence is a de facto LWOP sentence, we leave that issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing. To the contrary, the section expressly authorizes modification after a plea. It states that, absent a more specific statutory rule, in a postconviction proceeding to modify a sentence pursuant to an ameliorative statute the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea.

The statute then provides that a plea bargain may not be rescinded based upon such modification: Any change to a sentence shall not be basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Thus, section 1171 expressly authorizes trial courts to modify sentences imposed after a plea bargain and prohibits rescission of bargains based on such modification. The trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement

Authority:

PEN 1171(a), (c)(2) and (c)(3)

Second Holding:

Section 1170(d), under certain circumstances, provides for the recall and resentencing of juvenile offenders [who were tried as adults] with LWOP sentences.

(Gary note: without citation to published authority directly discussing this point, the unpublished opinion concludes that the use of the term “life without the possibility of parole” in section 1170(d) does not mention any specific statutes imposing LWOP sentences, such as section 190.5.

(This court infers from that lack of specificity that the Legislature must have intended that section 1170(d) apply whenever a candidate has received a sentence that, effectively, precludes parole in his or her lifetime. In other words, this unpublished opinion’s reasoning on this point is that section 1170(d), by its very terms, contemplates both express LWOP sentences and de facto LWOP sentences (sentences whose terms cannot be completed within a reasonable lifetime).

(The court states, “Thus, the Legislature appears to have intended section 1170(d) to be interpreted in a practical rather than technical manner to apply not only to formal LWOP sentences but also to de facto LWOP sentences that effectively render a juvenile offender ineligible for parole before they are expected to die.”

(Keep in mind that my description of this part of the holding is placed in a bracketed “Gary note,” and I may be oversimplifying and even misstating the court’s reasoning on this point. I simply thought it was an interesting approach that may prove useful.

(Also, the county’s District Attorney “invited” the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.  I suspect it is because the Attorney General actually represented the People in this appeal, and the DA would have had no standing to file a petition for review.  The Supreme Court has granted itself to a date in October 2026 to decide whether to grant review on its own motion.)

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(5)

Third Holding:

A practical interpretation of section 1170(d) is also supported by constitutional considerations. At least four Court of Appeal decisions have held that restricting resentencing under Section 1170(d) to juvenile offenders with formal LWOP sentences is irrational and violates equal protection, though others have disagreed.

Authority:

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450-454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 631-634

Contra: People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 1002-1006

Contra: People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1075-1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540

Fourth Holding:

Nonetheless, interpreting section 1170(d) to be limited to formal LWOP sentences plainly raises a serious constitutional question, and it is well-established that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions where they are reasonably susceptible to a reasonable alternative interpretation that do not raise such questions. Accordingly, we conclude that section 1170(d) should be interpreted to apply to de facto as well as formal LWOP sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 862 [If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will raise serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.]

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 339 [A statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question.]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court held that the defendant was not serving a de facto LWOP sentence because he is eligible for youthful offender parole under section 3051 and, in fact, already has received a youthful offender parole hearing. We disagree. Youthful offender parole is available to all juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences, whether formal or not.

Moreover, the Legislature extended youthful offender parole hearings to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences in 2017, five years after enacting section 1170(d). In so doing, the Legislature did not indicate that it intended to end resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences under section 1170(d), and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes.

Accordingly, in determining whether an individual was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole under section 1170(d), youthful offender parole should be disregarded.

Authority:

PEN 3051(b)(4)

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 845

Garris v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 477

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 447-448

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

Amelioration, Gary Musings, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000723

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court was required to revisit whether the gang enhancement attached to the felony assault charge was still valid in light of changes to the gang criminal activity statutes under AB 333. When asked to strike the enhancement, the trial court stated that it did not have discretion to relitigate the facts underlying the gang enhancement. This was error.

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 rendered legally invalid any prior prison term enhancement imposed before January 1, 2020 (unless the enhancement was imposed for a prior sexually violent conviction), and it created a resentencing procedure for defendants who are currently serving sentences that include such an enhancement. Section 1172.75(c) requires a court to strike any now-invalid prior prison term enhancement and recall the defendant’s sentence.

Section 1172.75(d) provides instructions for resentencing. Among other things, the provision requires the court to resentence the defendant under current law, including any changes in law that reduce sentences.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

We review a trial court’s sentencing decisions for abuse of discretion. A court abuses its discretion when it acts arbitrarily and capriciously, relies on improper matters, or is unaware of the scope of its discretion such that it does not exercise its discretion at all. We independently review questions of statutory interpretation implicated by the trial court’s decisions.

Authority:

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Mathis (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 359, 366

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, AB 333 made several changes to the law governing the gang enhancement.

First, AB 333 narrowed the definition of a criminal street gang to require that any gang be an ongoing, organized association or group of three or more persons.

Second, it changed the requirement that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity to now require that any such pattern be collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, it narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal gang activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (2) the pattern offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the pattern offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) none of the pattern offenses is the same as the currently charged offense.

Finally, AB 333 narrowed what it means for an offense to have commonly benefitted a street gang, requiring that any common benefit be more than reputational. Examples of a common benefit that are more than reputational, under the amended provision, include, but are not limited to, financial gain or motivation, retaliation, targeting a perceived or actual gang rival, or intimidation or silencing of a potential current or previous witness or informant.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

Fourth Holding:

AB 333’s amendments to section 186.22 apply retroactively to the defendant’s case because they are ameliorative changes and the defendant’s case became nonfinal when the court vacated and recalled his sentence under section 1172.75.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 163

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396–400

Fifth Holding:

In Stamps, the Supreme Court held that a trial court may not modify a plea agreement because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. But, as the Supreme Court explained in Doe v. Harris, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Thus, under Doe, the defendant’s 2016 plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333. Consequently, requiring the parties compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. We therefore conclude that the gang-related enhancement findings must be vacated and the matter remanded to give the People the opportunity to prove the applicability of the enhancements under the amendments to section 186.22.

Authority:

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 701

Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 73-74

People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161, 168

People v. Lopez (2021) 73 Cal.App.5th 327, 346

Extensive Gary Note, NOT In The Opinion:

Gary note: I think I first noted this in my summary for Case 000532. But effective 1/1/2025, section 1171 provides that a resentencing under any ameliorative provisions cannot result in an order to set aside a plea bargain in which the sentence was specified. In other words, section 1171 appears to have overturned the Stamps decision with respect to allowing the lower court or the prosecution to set aside a plea bargain if the ameliorative provisions apply to change the sentence in a way that the prosecutor or court do not like.

This question was granted review in a case that originally issued a published opinion in 2024 (100 Cal.App.5th 768), where it defined the issue as “Is the prosecution entitled to rescind a plea agreement when a defendant receives a full resentencing pursuant to Senate Bill No. 483 (Stats. 2021, ch. 728) and the trial court intends to reduce the sentence beyond eliminating the prior prison term enhancements?”

On 12/18/2024, the Supreme Court transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal on the People’s motion for the Court of Appeal to vacate its earlier decision [which, in fact, concluded that the prosecutor could NOT rescind the agreement] and reconsider its opinion in light of the passage of AB 2483, which enacted section 1171. It also ordered the Court of Appeal’s original opinion to be depublished.

On remand, the Court of Appeal set aside its earlier opinion and issued a new opinion in which it said, “At the hearing, Montgomery may seek relief under any provision of section 1172.75, and neither the prosecutor nor the court may rescind the plea agreement due to a resulting sentence reduction.”

The original Court of Appeal opinion was published, and it provides an analysis of why a review of the legislative history of AB 483 (which enacted section 1172.75)–including uncodified portions of AB 483– compelled it to conclude that Stamps did not apply. But the subsequent opinion following the Supreme Court’s transfer relied solely on section 1171, and the opinion was not published.  As I stated, the “published” opinion also was wiped off the books when the Supreme Court ordered it depublished.

In the recent decision People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729, the Supreme Court indicated its awareness of section 1171–as it obviously did when it transferred the Montgomery case–but declined to apply it where the case was a direct appeal from the judgment itself, in which the appellant challenged the stipulated sentence–in which he agreed to and received an upper term before section 1170 was amended to require jury findings for upper terms.

See Mitchell’s footnote 9. Keep in mind that section 1171 was created to guide courts in the handling of newly enacted ameliorative legislation. The Supreme Court in Mitchell seems to have left open the question where the appeal is from the original judgment itself, rather than an appeal from an attempt at securing relief from ameliorative statutes. Its footnote 9 ends, “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.”

And for the rest of the story, the Court of Appeal has since, in an unpublished sentence, remanded the matter to the trial court to permit the defendant to seek relief under the ameliorative provisions.  At that time, the defendant may present the argument that section 1171 bars the prosecution or the court from seeking that the plea agreement be set aside if either the prosecutor or the court is not satisfied with any resulting modification of the sentence.

Authority:

Gary has no authority, just musings.