32 Cal. App. 5th 342
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Vanessa Bueno pleaded no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, two counts under Vehicle Code §23153 (DUI causing injury / .08+ causing injury), and two felony child endangerment counts after a single-vehicle rollover killed her son and injured her daughter.
- She admitted related enhancements (great bodily injury, multiple victims, .15%+ BAC). Her plea form was an open plea; she placed an "X" (not initials) in the Arbuckle-waiver box and did not expressly waive the right to be sentenced by the judge who took her plea.
- The plea was accepted by Judge Moranda; sentencing was later imposed by a different judge. Bueno did not object at sentencing to the different judge presiding.
- The People concede counts 2 and 3 are lesser-included offenses of count 1 and that some fees/assessments were miscalculated, but argue forfeiture of any Arbuckle claim.
- The Court reversed and remanded for resentencing before Judge Moranda (or an option to withdraw the plea if Judge Moranda is unavailable), holding the Arbuckle right was not waived or forfeited.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Bueno waived right to be sentenced by the judge who accepted her plea (Arbuckle right) | Bueno: did not waive Arbuckle right; her plea form markings show no valid waiver and no on-the-record waiver was made | People: Bueno forfeited the Arbuckle claim by not objecting at sentencing; court should follow forfeiture precedent | Court: Arbuckle right is an implied term of every plea and cannot be forfeited by defendant's inaction; remand for sentencing by the plea-taking judge |
| Whether counts 2 and 3 and related enhancements should be reversed/stricken vs. stayed as lesser-included offenses | Bueno: claims counts 2 and 3 and enhancements must be reversed/stricken if not resentenced by same judge | People: concedes counts 2 and 3 are lesser-included and should be stricken rather than stayed | Court: did not decide on merits due to remand; notes People's concession that counts 2 and 3 should be stricken |
| Whether the great bodily injury enhancement to the child endangerment conviction must be stricken because stayed enhancement reduced credit earning capacity | Bueno: enhancement should be stricken because its stay decreased credits and increased term | People: did not concede; left for trial court to address | Court: left the issue to be addressed on remand by trial court |
| Whether fees and assessments were correctly calculated | Bueno: challenges fee/assessment calculations | People: concedes miscalculations | Court: notes concession; directs recalculation at resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Arbuckle, 22 Cal.3d 749 (implied term of plea: judge who accepts plea will impose sentence)
- K.R. v. Superior Court, 3 Cal.5th 295 (reaffirming Arbuckle; Arbuckle right is implied and prosecution must obtain waiver to avoid same-judge requirement)
- People v. Binkerd, 155 Cal.App.4th 1143 (counts 23153 treated as lesser-included relative to vehicular manslaughter)
- People v. West, 107 Cal.App.3d 987 (forfeiture approach to Arbuckle claims; discussed and declined to govern under K.R.)