Tag Archives: Pleas and plea bargains

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 000688

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available.

However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Third Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

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

Fourth Holding:

While the judge who took the plea in 1995 declared her practice was to ensure defendants received sufficient immigration advisements, she mentions only possible consequences. She does not state she or the district attorney made the mandatory consequences explicit. Because the defendant’s plea predated Padilla, the requirement making this advisement mandatory for defense counsel did not yet exist. Without an explicit statement about the mandatory consequences, the immigration advisement was inadequate.

Authority:

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

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905–906 [where immigration consequences are clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient]

Fifth Holding:

To determine prejudice, we focus on whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have turned down the plea agreement had he understood the immigration consequences. [The court then described his ties to the United states.] We also determine whether there was reason for the defendant to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was possible. His attorney testified to several other crimes to which the defendant could have pleaded that would have been better for his immigration prospects. Although his exposure was eight years, his plea agreement was for less than a year of prison time. He may have needed to accept a longer prison time to obtain a lesser conviction, but he averred this willingness.

The sparse record we have does not provide reason to believe the prosecutor would have rejected such a proposal automatically. Moreover, though the trial court stated, and the prosecutor argues, it would have been irrational to roll the dice on a longer sentence with such an offer in hand, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that someone in the defendant’s position might indeed rationally make such a decision, as the defendant affirmed he would have.

Authority:

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 371

Appellate Principles, Juveniles, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000684

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred when it set minor’s maximum confinement term at 33 years plus 25 years to life. We modify the maximum term of confinement to 25 years eight months plus 25 years to life.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1391. The amendment eliminated the transfer of juveniles accused of committing crimes when they are 14 or 15 years old, unless they are first apprehended after the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. One year later, in 2020, the Legislature passed juvenile justice realignment through SB 823. It overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing the Division of Juvenile Justice and transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age appropriate treatment.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)

WIC 736.5

O.G. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (2011) 11 Cal.5th 82, 89

In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435, 448

In re T.O. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 252, 262–263

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907

Second Holding:

Section 875, effective May 14, 2021, was added as part of the juvenile justice realignment. Under the new scheme, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a minor who is 14 years of age or older be committed to Secure Youth Treatment Facility if the minor meets certain criteria.

Authority:

WIC 875(a)

In re J.P. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 74, 78

Third Holding:

Section 875(b)(1) states the baseline term must be based on the most serious recent offense for which the minor has been adjudicated and shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the minor and to prepare the minor for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term must be consistent with specified guidelines and may deviate by no more than six months.

Authority:

WIC 875(b)(1)

Fourth Holding:

In deciding minor’s placement, the juvenile court has maximum flexibility to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular minor before it.

Dispositional orders must conform with the purposes of juvenile delinquency laws, which are “twofold: (1) to serve the best interests of the delinquent minor by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the minor and enable him or her to be a law abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community, and (2) to provide for the protection and safety of the public.

It must consider the broadest range of information in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care. A disposition hearing record should reflect evidence that the proposed means of rehabilitation will result in probable benefit to the minor, and that the goals of the juvenile law could not have been met by a less restrictive placement.

Authority:

In re James R. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 413, 432

In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906

In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614

In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329

Fifth Holding:

Plea bargains are an accepted and integral component of the criminal justice system and essential to the expeditious and fair administration of our courts. Plea bargaining is a common feature in juvenile delinquency proceedings, just as it is in criminal proceedings in adult court. Similar principles apply in both settings.

A plea bargain is a contract between the accused and the prosecutor. Both of these parties are bound to the terms of the agreement; when the court approves the plea bargain, it also agrees to be bound by its terms. Both the accused and the prosecution are entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain. When either the prosecution or the defendant is deprived of benefits for which it has bargained, corresponding relief will lie from concessions made.

Authority:

People v. Collins (1978) 21 Cal.3d 208, 214

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

In re Kenneth H. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 143 [It is well settled that a plea bargain is a tripartite agreement which requires the consent of the defendant, the People and the court]

In re Jermaine B. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 634, 639 [Plea bargaining is an accepted practice in our criminal justice system]

People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 533

People v. Armendariz (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 906, 911

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80 [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 must abide by the terms of the agreement]

Sixth 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, directly or indirectly.

Authority:

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

People v. Ames (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1217

Seventh Holding:

The court, upon sentencing, has broad discretion to withdraw its prior approval of a negotiated plea. Such withdrawal is permitted, for example, in those instances where the court becomes more fully informed about the case, or where, after further consideration, the court concludes that the bargain is not in the best interests of society. In deciding whether or not to withdraw approval of a plea bargain, the court may of course be expected to consult the probation report.

Authority:

eople v. Johnson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 868, 873

People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Stringham (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 184, 194

Eighth Holding:

A minor who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the juvenile court in that court has forfeited his or her right to raise the claim on appeal. The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the court—so any error may be corrected. While forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880; In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710

In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on another ground

In re M.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 269, 273–274

United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 733–734

In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1155 [A broad or general waiver such as ‘I waive my appeal rights,’ will include error occurring prior to the waiver, but not subsequent error because the defendant could not make ‘a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error]

Ninth Holding:

The juvenile court incorrectly calculated the determinative portion of the term for count 2, the primary offense, as 19 years. Attempted murder, the offense in count 2, has a sentencing triad of five, seven, or nine years, for which the juvenile court imposed the upper term of nine years plus a 10 year term for the attendant gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1)(C).

However, section 875(c)(1)(B) specifically states the term chosen by the juvenile court cannot exceed the middle term for which an adult would be eligible, with some exceptions. Therefore, the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 2.

Authority:

WIC 875(c)(1)(B)

Tenth Holding:

The juvenile court also miscalculated the consecutive term for count 1. Count 1 was the subordinate term, and the court was limited to one-third of the middle term plus one-third of the enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Plea bargains

Case 000679

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Count ten as pled created a legal impossibility requiring reversal of the trial court’s acceptance of defendant’s plea agreement.

First Holding:

A claim not presented in the opening brief and was first raised in the appellant’s reply brief is deemed waived.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9

Second Holding:

Generally, a guilty or no contest plea precludes appellate consideration of issues related to guilt or innocence, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Nonetheless, a defendant may still assert that his, her, or their admission included a legal impossibility.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 114

People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365

Third Holding:

The term ‘legal impossibility,’ as applied to a choate [sic] crime, is merely a catch phrase for saying that, as a matter of law, the statute under which the defendant is charged does not prohibit his, her, or their conduct. Put another way, legal impossibility exists when the facts as admitted cannot constitute the crime pled to, such as where the victim’s characteristics fall outside of the statutory definition.

Authority:

People v. Jerome (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094, 1099 [setting aside plea to oral copulation of a minor under 14 where the victim was 15]

People v. Richardson (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 360, 371-375 [setting aside no contest plea to human trafficking of a minor where victim was not a minor]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781 [a death certificate is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115, so it was legally impossible for the defendant to be guilty of section 115 for attempting to forge a death certificate]

Fourth Holding:

We conclude that because section 134 [essentially, falsifying a document for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose] is not one of the specifically enumerated offenses in section 653f(a) [solicitation of another to commit specified crimes] and given that the elements of a section 134 offense do not necessarily establish one of the specifically enumerated offenses, defendant’s plea to violating section 653f(a) by committing a violation of section 134 has resulted in a legal impossibility requiring reversal.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784, 786

Duty of the court, Effective assistance of counsel, Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000544

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the court set the probation term at three years instead of the agreed-on two years, the court erred in not complying with the plea bargain without permitting the defendant to withdraw from the plea agreement.

First Holding:

The standard for evaluating claims that counsel provided constitutionally ineffective assistance is set forth in Strickland. This standard provides that to secure reversal upon the ground of ineffective assistance of counsel under either the state or federal Constitution, an appellant must establish (1) that counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness, i.e., that counsel’s performance did not meet the standard to be expected of a reasonably competent attorney, and (2) that there is a reasonable probability that appellant would have obtained a more favorable result absent counsel’s shortcomings.

On direct appeal, a conviction will be reversed for ineffective assistance only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation. All other claims of ineffective assistance are more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding.

Authority:

Strickland v. Washington (1984) 466 U.S. 668, 687–694

People v. Cunningham (2001) 25 Cal.4th 926, 1003

People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009

Second Holding:

It is the appellant’s burden to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his or her counsel’s performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. Unless an appellant establishes the contrary, we shall presume that counsel’s performance fell within the wide range of professional competence and that counsel’s actions and inactions can be explained as a matter of sound trial strategy. Further, failure to raise a meritless objection is not ineffective assistance of counsel.

Authority:

In re Thomas (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1249, 1257

People v. Ledesma (2006) 39 Cal.4th 641, 746

People v. Bradley (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 64, 90

Third Holding:

The defendant argues that his trial counsel was ineffective by failing to object when the trial court placed on a three-year grant of probation instead of the two-year probation term contemplated by the plea agreement. However, the order of probation is an unauthorized sentence, on which basis we reverse, rendering moot the question of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The Legislature enacted AB 1950, effective January 1, 2021, which significantly changed the law governing probation, including section 1203.1. Under the amended version of section 1203.1, the maximum term of probation a trial court may impose for most felony offenses is a period of time not exceeding two years. Whereas previous law had authorized courts to grant a period of probation not exceeding the maximum term for which the person could be imprisoned, AB 1950 instead authorizes a court to impose a term of probation not longer than 2 years, except as otherwise specified. As a general matter, the amendments of AB 1950 apply retroactively to the benefit of a person whose judgment is not yet final on appeal.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Arreguin (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 787, 793

People v. Faial (2025) 18 Cal.5th 199, 207

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 963 [modifying term of probation to conform with new law while preserving remainder of plea agreement]

Fourth Holding:

Generally, a court may not accept an unauthorized plea. Where a trial court is asked to approve an illegal plea bargain—illegal because it violates a policy condition established by the Legislature or the people through the initiative process—the proper course of action for the court is clear. It should decline to act in excess of its authority and should refuse to approve an arrangement under which it is called upon to do so. Faced with an unlawful plea bargain, a trial court should withhold approval of the bargain.

Thus, if a court has approved a plea bargain containing an illegal term, ordinarily, the recourse for a court would not be to reform the bargain to make it legal; it would be to withdraw its prior approval of the agreement. Whether by withdrawal of its prior approval or the granting of a withdrawal/rescission request by one or both of the parties, the trial court must restore the parties to the status quo ante. The parties may then enter into a new plea agreement, which will be subject to the trial court’s approval, or they may proceed to trial on the reinstated charges.

Authority:

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 974

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757 [When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered]

People v. Barton (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1145, 1159

[Gary Note:

Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, 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 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.

But Wait! There’s More!

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, Appellate Principles, Plea bargains, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000532

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

(You might need a cuppajoe or demitasse of tea or mug o’cocoa for this Error and/or relief, because Gary has a few words to share.  If THAT doesn’t put you to sleep, then you’re safe to move on to the 11 items I’ve listed as Holdings.  I happen to be quite interested in the impact of section 1171 on the application of the Stamps remedy that involves setting aside the plea if the prosecution doesn’t like effect that application of ameliorative provisions have where the upper term had been stipulated to in the original plea bargain.  This opinion alludes to that in what I have labeled as the Eleventh Holding.)

Upon recall of the sentence under section 1172.75, the trial court should have addressed whether the changes in the gang criminal activity law effected by AB 333 applied to the defendant’s judgment. The trial court’s resentencing order is vacated. The gang conviction (sec. 186.22(a)) on count 3 is reversed and the true finding on the gang enhancement (sec. 186.22(b)(1)) on count 4 is vacated. The prosecution shall have the opportunity to establish the gang conviction and enhancement under the current version of section 186.22. The matter is remanded for further proceedings.

(Gary note: This unpublished opinion recognizes that section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, 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 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.

(But Wait! There’s More!

(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.”)

First Holding:

Prior to January 1, 2020, section 667.5(b) required trial courts to impose a one-year sentence enhancement for each true finding on an allegation the defendant had served a separate prior prison term and had not remained free of custody for at least five years. Section 667.5(b) was amended effective January 1, 2020, to eliminate prior prison term enhancements for all crimes except certain sexually violent offenses. Effective January 1, 2022, (renumbered) section 1172.75 made this change retroactive.

Authority:

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 379–380

Second Holding:

A defendant serving a term for a judgment that includes a now-invalid enhancement is entitled to resentencing. By its plain terms, section 1172.75 requires a full resentencing, not merely that the trial court strike the newly invalid enhancements. A defendant is entitled to a full resentencing under section 1172.75 even when the original sentence was imposed pursuant to a plea agreement.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

People v. Monroe (2022) 85 Cal.App.5th 393, 402

People v. Carter (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 960, 972

Third Holding:

Section 1172.75(d) sets forth detailed instructions for resentencing once a sentence has been recalled. Resentencing shall result in a lesser sentence than the one originally imposed as a result of the elimination of the repealed enhancement, unless the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that imposing a lesser sentence would endanger public safety. Resentencing pursuant to this section shall not result in a longer sentence than the one originally imposed.

Authority:

People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050, 1055

Fourth Holding:

Effective January 1, 2022, Assembly Bill 333 [AB 333] made several changes to the criminal street gang laws.

First, it 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, whereas section 186.22, former subdivision (f) required only that a gang’s members individually or collectively engage in a pattern of criminal activity in order to constitute a criminal street gang, AB 333 requires that any such pattern have been collectively engaged in by members of the gang.

Third, AB 333 also narrowed the definition of a pattern of criminal activity by requiring that (1) the last offense used to show a pattern of criminal gang activity occurred within three years of the date that the currently charged offense is alleged to have been committed; (2) the offenses were committed by two or more gang members, as opposed to just persons; (3) the offenses commonly benefitted a criminal street gang; and (4) the offenses establishing a pattern of gang activity must be ones other than the currently charged offense.

Fourth, 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.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

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

Fifth Holding:

Previously, a defendant who had committed an offense to benefit the reputation of a criminal street gang, but with no other benefit, was subject to the enhancement. Amended section 186.22(g) now requires the prosecution to show that the common benefit to the gang is more than reputational. Additionally, to prove a pattern of gang activity was collectively engaged in by members of the gang under amended section 186.22(f), the prosecution must show a nexus between the individual predicate offenses and the gang as an organized, collective enterprise.

Authority:

PEN 186.22

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657, 667

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 749

Sixth Holding:

Under Estrada, ameliorative changes to criminal statutes apply to all cases not final on appeal absent contrary legislative intent. The rule in Estrada has been applied to statutes governing penalty enhancements, as well as to statutes governing substantive offenses. The changes to the elements of a section 186.22 gang enhancement apply retroactively pursuant to Estrada. Estrada applies to statutory amendments which redefine, to the benefit of defendants, conduct subject to criminal sanctions. Assembly Bill 333 added new elements to the substantive offense and enhancements in section 186.22, and thus its substantive changes apply retroactively to all nonfinal cases under Estrada.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745

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

People v. Nasalga (1996) 12 Cal.4th 784, 792

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 394–395

Seventh Holding:

The defendant’s sentence was vacated when the trial court recalled his sentence under section 1172.75. Once his sentence was vacated, the trial court had jurisdiction to resentence him to a new sentence. The defendant regained the right to appeal whatever new sentence was imposed, and his judgment became nonfinal for Estrada purposes.

Authority:

People v. Padilla (2022) 13 Cal.5th 152, 161-162, 163 [once a court has determined that a defendant is entitled to resentencing, the result is vacatur of the original sentence, whereupon the trial court may impose any appropriate sentence]

People v. Arias (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 213, 219 [recall of the defendant’s sentence effectively vacates his original sentence and commitment]

Eighth Holding:

Courts that have applied AB 333 retroactively have permitted retrial of the gang charges on remand when the defendant was convicted following a jury trial. As one court explained, the proper remedy for this type of failure of proof —where newly required elements under amended section 186.22 were never tried to the jury—is to remand and give the People an opportunity to retry the affected charges. We see no reason the prosecution should be precluded from establishing the elements of section 186.22 as amended by AB 333 because the defendant’s sentence resulted from a plea agreement.

Case law has recognized the prosecution must have an opportunity to establish an element of an offense subsequently added by statute even if the defendant was convicted pursuant to a plea agreement. When a statutory amendment adds an additional element to an offense, the prosecution must be afforded the opportunity to establish the additional element upon remand. Such a retrial is not barred by the double jeopardy clause or ex post facto principles. Fairness dictates that the prosecution be given the opportunity to establish the additional element on remand when a conviction based on a plea bargain is vacated due to a statutory amendment adding an element the prosecution previously had no reason to prove.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2024) 15 Cal.5th 743, 764

People v. Cooper (2023) 14 Cal.5th 735, 746–747

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657,669-670

People v. E.H. (2022) 75 Cal.App.5th 467, 480

People v. Lopez (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 409, 416

People v. Eagle (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 275

People v. Figueroa (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 65, 71–72 and fn. 2

Ninth Holding:

Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes in the law made retroactive to them does not violate the terms of the plea agreement, nor does the failure of a plea agreement to reference the possibility the law might change translate into an implied promise the defendant will be unaffected by a change in the statutory consequences attending his or her conviction. To that extent, then, the terms of the plea agreement can be affected by changes in the law. Because a plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound, a trial court may not violate the agreement by modifying it. Under Doe, however, the terms of the plea bargain include future changes in the law. By implementing such changes, the trial court is not altering the terms of the plea bargain.

Authority:

PEN 1016.8

PEN 1192.7(b)

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

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

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

Tenth Holding:

Pursuant to Doe, the defendant’s plea agreement is deemed to incorporate the Legislature’s subsequent enactment of AB 333, and we agree with the parties that AB 333 applies retroactively to the defendant’s case. Requiring the parties’ compliance with changes to section 186.22 made retroactive to the defendant does not violate the terms of the plea agreement. For these reasons, the prosecution must be given an opportunity on remand to establish the elements of the substantive gang offense charged on count 3 and the gang enhancement on count 4 pursuant to amended section 186.22. Following any proceeding to establish those elements or if the prosecution chooses to forego its opportunity to comply with AB 333, the trial court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

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

People v. Sek (2022) 74 Cal.App.5th 657,669-670

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 425

Eleventh Holding:

As a general rule, we do not issue advisory opinions indicating what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts. We note though for the benefit of the parties and the trial court that the defendant’s resentencing under section 1172.75 remains subject to section 1171, which provides (effective 1/1/2025) that any changes to a sentence shall not be a basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Section 1171 was further amended effective 1/1/2026 to provide that this section does not diminish the ability of the prosecution to oppose relief requested in a postconviction proceeding. On remand, the trial court must comply with the current version of section 1171 when resentencing the defendant.

Authority:

PEN 1171(c)(3) and (e)

People v. Slayton (2001) 26 Cal.4th 1076, 1084

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000518

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

While defendant was on probation with an upper term suspended sentence, section 1170 was amended to preclude imposition of the upper term in the absence of aggravating factors found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or by stipulation. On revocation, the court ordered execution of the upper term sentence. The sentence is reversed and the matter remanded for further proceedings at which the defendant may waive or invoke the requirements of section 1170(b). If he invokes its requirements, and the court is unable to impose the upper term in compliance with 1170, and the people or the court do not acquiesce to a term lower than the upper, the court must set aside the plea restore the parties to the status quo.

(Gary note: In this opinion, the court notes that there was a stipulated sentence as part of the plea agreement, and alludes to the Stamp rule that if the court and prosecutor are not happy with the resentencing, the plea should be set aside, restoring the parties to their status quo ante. But section 1171, effective 1/1/2025, may put the kibosh on Stamps and that line of reasoning. It was not discussed in this case. I have run across at least one unpublished opinion that seems to agree with me, which I have summarized as Case 000792, but it’s not due for posting yet. In that case, the district attorney apparently did not file a petition for review, but has asked the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.

(I’m not sure why the DA did not file a petition for review, because its request for the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion was filed well before the deadline for filing a petition for review. (Any petition must be served and filed within 10 days after the Court of Appeal opinion is final, per rule 8.500(e)(1), which is normally 30 days after the opinion is filed. So while there are exceptions when there is a shorter period for finality, the deadline for filing a petition for review is 40 days after the date of the opinion. But even if no party files a petition for review within the time allowed, the Supreme Court can grant review on its own motion within a later deadline–within 30 days after the opinion in the lower court becomes final, per rule 8.512(c).) As of the writing of this summary, the Supreme Court has extended its deadline to October 21, 2026.

(Essentially, though, the court in Case 000792 said that Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing, and modification of the sentence does not require setting aside the plea bargain. 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.

(In the context of dealing with ameliorative provisions (including but not limited to “sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75”), section 1171(c)(3) says, “Any changes to a sentence shall not be a 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 appellate court in Case 000792 held that the trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement.)

First Holding:

SB 567 amended section 1170 to limit the trial court’s ability to impose the upper term by making the middle term the presumptive prison term unless specified circumstances exist. When a judgment of imprisonment is to be imposed and the statute specifies three possible terms, the court shall, in its sound discretion, order imposition of a sentence not to exceed the middle term, except as otherwise provided in section 1170(b)(2). The court may impose a sentence exceeding the middle 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 at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)

Second Holding:

The only question before us is an issue currently pending before the California Supreme Court: whether a defendant whose sentence was imposed pursuant to a stipulated plea agreement may seek relief under Senate Bill No. 567. This is an issue that has split the Courts of Appeal, including divisions within this court.

[Gary note:  The Mitchell case cited by the Court of Appeal as shown in Authority as on review was decided In May 2026, People v. Mitchell (2026) 19 Cal.5th 729.  The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Court of Appeal (which recently remanded it to the trial court) to allow the defendant to take advantage of the amelioration despite his stipulated sentence, but it followed its decision in Stamps that if the prosecution or the lower court is not happy with the modified judgment, the plea must be set aside and the parties restored to their status prior to the plea bargain.  

[But the Supreme Court’s Mitchell decision contains a footnote, which I lay out here:  “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.” (sec.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.”

[Section 1171 expressly applies to ameliorative statutes, and does not identify section 1170 as an ameliorative section, but it says its list of “such as” statutes is not a limitation to its application.  I suspect–and that’s ALL it is, just pure speculation–that the Supreme Court was not ready to deal with section 1171 so late in the Mitchell appeal, and would prefer to see it battled out in the superior courts and Courts of Appeal before it takes on the issue.  That way it would have the benefit of perhaps many different approaches before it has to reach the proper conclusion.]

Authority:

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, 334, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S278690 [same]

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, 376, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S279154 [defendant entitled to remand]

People v. Fox (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 826, 830 [same]

People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054, 1056, review granted Feb. 21, 2024, S283452 [same]

Third Holding:

We independently review issues of statutory construction. As ever in statutory interpretation, w]e begin with the text of the relevant provisions. If the text is unambiguous and provides a clear answer, we need go no further. If the language supports multiple readings, we may consult extrinsic sources, including but not limited to the legislative history and administrative interpretations of the language.

Authority:

People v. Fox (2023) 90 Cal.App.5th 826, 831 (review granted)

People v. Mitchell (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 1051, 1057 (review granted) [Gary note: see my note in Second Holding]

Fourth Holding:

That the parties enter into a plea agreement does not have the effect of insulating them from changes in the law that the Legislature has intended to apply to them. A plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive unknown future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea is not knowing and intelligent.

A provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may retroactively apply after the date of the plea is void as against public policy. These statutory provisions are best understood as only prohibiting the court from unilaterally modifying the terms of the bargain without affording an opportunity to the aggrieved party to rescind the plea agreement and resume proceedings where they left off.

Authority:

PEN 1016.8

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

Fifth Holding:

The relevant question here is not whether the sentencing judge is bound by the parties’ stipulated sentence, but whether the defendant is entitled to the ameliorative effect of SB 567’s new sentencing provisions. The defendant is entitled to the benefit of the change in the law under section 1170. But because he agreed to the upper term in his plea bargain, if the court were to reduce his sentence to any lesser sentence, the People will have been denied the benefit of its bargain.

A limited remand is appropriate to allow the court to determine whether it may impose the upper term in compliance with the new provisions of section 1170. If it determines that it may, then the sentence of six years may be imposed. Otherwise, if the defendant declines to stipulate to factors in aggravation supporting the upper term, the plea bargain must be set aside and the parties restored to their status quo, unless the prosecution and the court are willing to accept the lower sentence.

Authority:

People v. Todd (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 373, 380-382, review granted Apr. 26, 2023, S279154

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 707

Sentencing, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case 000515

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in sentencing him to the upper term when no aggravating circumstances were alleged in the information, he did not admit any aggravating circumstances, and no factfinder found any true beyond a reasonable doubt.

First Holding:

Under section 1170(b)(2), the court may impose the upper term only when aggravating circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or found true beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury or judge. That procedure was not followed here. A defendant, by entering into a plea agreement that includes the upper term as the maximum sentence, does not implicitly admit that his conduct could support that term. Specifically, while a plea agreement constitutes an admission to all the elements of the admitted offenses, it does not constitute an admission to any aggravating circumstance.

Authority:

PEN 1170(b)(2)

People v. French (2008) 43 Cal.4th 36, 48

People v. Hoffard (1995) 10 Cal.4th 1170, 1177

Second Holding:

Accordingly, the court here erred in sentencing the defendant to the upper term. Given the total absence of any admitted or proven aggravating circumstances, we cannot conclude this error was harmless. A remand for resentencing is thus required.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000442

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant entered into a plea agreement that stipulated the length of his sentence and how it was to be served (a split sentence under Realignment). When he was eventually sentenced, the court deviated from that agreed-on sentence. The defendand appealed. While the appeal was pending, the trial court and parties attempted to modify the judgment in accordance with the plea agreement. Because the defendant was never advised of his right to withdraw his plea if the court chose to not abide by the agreed sentence under section 1192.5, the matter is reversed to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea. The trial court had no jurisdiction to modify the judgment while the appeal was pending.

First Holding:

A plea of guilty or nolo contendere may specify the punishment. Where, as here, 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 advisement required by section 1192.5(c) was not given here. 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:

PEN 1192.5

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

People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024–1025 [overruled on other grounds by People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183]

Second Holding:

The three-year prison sentence originally imposed is more severe than the agreed-upon sentence of two years in county jail with one year of mandatory supervision. There is a qualitative difference between an inmate in actual prison custody and a felon released in the community under mandatory supervision.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 935 [length of jail term is significant]

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 591–592 [30-day jail sentence consecutive to agreed-upon sentence allowed defendant to withdraw plea]

Wofford v. Superior Court (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 1023, 1037

Third Holding:

The filing of a valid notice of appeal vests jurisdiction of the cause in the appellate court until determination of the appeal and issuance of the remittitur. Because an appeal divests the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction, the court lacks jurisdiction to vacate the judgment or make any order affecting it. Thus, action by the trial court while an appeal is pending is null and void. The purported changes to the sentence that were made while appeals in this matter were pending are thus void.

Authority:

People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1472-1473

Fourth Holding:

While an appeal is pending, a trial court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in its records, including correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts. The distinction between clerical error and judicial error is whether the error was made in rendering the judgment, or in recording the judgment rendered. Here the court had the power to correct the erroneous section designation in the original abstract. But it did not have the power to change the sentence while the appeals were pending. Under such circumstances, the proper procedure is to reverse the void judgment rather than dismiss the appeal.

Authority:

People v. Alanis (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1467, 1473-1474

Abstracts and Minutes, Plea bargains

Case: 000418

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court failed to orally dismiss counts that were to be dismissed under the plea agreement. We modify the judgment to reflect the dismissal of the two counts.

Holding:

The trial court erred by failing to dismiss the remaining counts as required by the plea agreement. While the minutes indicate the counts were dismissed, the court did not orally dismiss them at the hearing. To avoid unnecessarily wasting limited resources, we modify the judgment to reflect the plea agreement.

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1337 [A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound]

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]

Jury trial, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case: 000340

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was committed to the Department of State Hospitals nearly 50 years ago after being found not guilty by reason of insanity of robbery and assault. He challenges the order recommitting him for two years. The record fails to establish that he knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights to a jury trial and we therefore reverse.

First Holding:

Where a criminal defendant has been found to have been insane at the time the offense was committed, unless it appears to the trial court that the sanity of the defendant has been recovered fully, the court may order the defendant committed to the Department of State Hospitals (DSH) or any other appropriate facility for care and treatment. The commitment order must specify the maximum term of commitment, which is defined as the longest term of imprisonment which could have been imposed for the offense of which the person was convicted.

Authority:

PEN 1026(a)

People v. K.P. (2018) 30 Cal.App.5th 331, 338

Second Holding:

A person committed to DSH who completes the maximum term of commitment must be released unless, prior to the expiration of that term, the prosecution files a petition seeking to extend the commitment by two years and demonstrates that the person, by reason of a mental disease, defect, or disorder represents a substantial danger of physical harm to others. Upon the filing of such a petition, the person is entitled to a jury trial, unless that right is waived by both the person and the prosecuting attorney.

To proceed with a bench trial instead of a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, the trial court must obtain a personal waiver of that right from the defendant unless the court finds substantial evidence that the defendant lacks the capacity to make a knowing and voluntary waiver, in which case defense counsel controls the waiver decision. Here, neither party contends that the defendant lacked the capacity to knowingly and voluntarily waive his right to a jury, so the only question before us is whether he personally waived it.

Authority:

PEN 1026.5(b)

People v. Superior Court (Frezier) (2020) 54 Cal.App.5th 652, 661–662

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1163

Third Holding:

We uphold a jury-trial waiver only if the record affirmatively shows that it is voluntary and intelligent under the totality of the circumstances. We do not start with a presumption of validity that may only be rebutted by signs of a defendant’s confusion or unwillingness in entering a waiver. Instead, a reviewing court satisfies itself of a legitimate waiver only when the record affirmatively demonstrates it was knowing and intelligent.

The denial of a defendant’s right to a jury trial in a recommitment proceeding, including through the acceptance of an invalid jury trial waiver is not susceptible to ordinary harmless error analysis and automatically requires reversal.

We cannot be certain on this record that the court and the defendant were ever, in the court’s words, on the same page regarding his desire to waive his right to a jury trial. And because we cannot be confident that the defendant actually waived the right, we do not ascribe much significance to his final indication that he did not have any questions about waiving the right. Under the totality of the circumstances, the record does not affirmatively demonstrate that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to a jury.

As a result, the order extending his commitment to DSH cannot stand.

Authority:

People v. Daniels (2017) 3 Cal.5th 961, 991

People v. Tran (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1160, 1169

Fines and fees, Jurisdiction, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case: 000299

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On revoking probation, the court added an additional restitution fine to the original restitution fine and modified an eight-month consecutive term to an eight-month concurrent term in the same case, and then a 16-month concurrent term in a second case. On notice from the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation that the 8-month concurrent term was unauthorized because the the one-third of the middle term clculation applies only to consecutive terms. The trial court then converted the eight-month concurrent term to 16 months concurrent. The second restitution fine was unauthorized and must be stricken. The court had no authority to change the original eight-month consecutive term to either a concurrent eight-month term or a sixteen-month concurrent term, because at the time probation was granted, the court imposed a sentence (two years on the principal count and eight months on the subordinate offense) in that case, with execution suspended pending successful completion of probation. The matter is remanded for resentencing.

First Holding:

A restitution fine imposed at the time probation is granted survives the revocation of probation. Because of this, an additional restitution fine imposed at the time probation is revoked is unauthorized and must be stricken from the judgment.

Authority:

People v. Urke (2011) 197 Cal.App.4th 766, 779

People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819

Second Holding:

There is a distinction between a probation grant in which imposition of sentence has been suspended (meaning, no sentence has been declared) and one where sentence has been imposed (meaning, a term has been specified) with the execution of that term suspended during the term of probation. In the former (imposition of sentence suspended), on revocation the court is free to choose whatever sentence options were available had probation never been granted. In the latter, the only choices are to reinstate probation or to revoke probation and order the previously imposed sentence executed.

Authority:

PEN 1203.2(c)

People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081

People v. Scott (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1415, 1424

Third Holding:

The letter from CDCR did not constitute a recommendation for recall of the sentence and resentencing under section 1170.1 that the sentence be modified. It was merely a letter seeking clarification on whether a lawful sentence had been imposed. Thus, the court could not base its resentencing on a response to the notice contemplated by section 1170.1.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 986-987

People v. Singleton (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 783, 791–792

Fourth Holding:

When the parties negotiate a plea agreement that grants probation incorporating and conditioned upon the service of a specified term in custody, the resulting term of incarceration constitutes a material term of, the parties’ agreement. As such, the term is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties, and cannot be altered solely on the basis of the trial court’s general statutory authority to modify probation during the probationary period. Further, a plea agreement requiring an unauthorized sentence is not enforceable. On the other hand, once the court approves a plea bargain, it cannot change the agreement without the consent of the parties. When a guilty plea is invalidated the parties are generally restored to the positions they occupied before the plea bargain was entered.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931, 935

In re Daniel M. Williams (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 936, 945 [the trial court cannot approve a plea bargain that calls for an unlawful sentence]

People v. Aragon (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 749, 756–757

People v. Baries (1989) 209 Cal.App.3d 313, 319 [The concurrent sentence was unauthorized and could not have been lawfully imposed. It must be vacated, and the trial court must give the defendant, if she chooses, the opportunity to withdraw her plea since it cannot be honored.]

People v. Griffin (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1119