43 Cal.App.5th 925
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background:
- Defendant Charles Patrick Ellis was charged with multiple offenses including evading a peace officer and possession of methamphetamine for sale; the information alleged a prior serious felony conviction and gang and prior prison-term enhancements.
- Ellis (self-represented under Faretta) pled no contest to two counts and admitted enhancements pursuant to a negotiated plea; the trial court accepted the plea and imposed a stipulated determinate term of 8 years 4 months (including a mandatory five‑year prior serious‑felony enhancement).
- Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the judgment after plea but did not obtain a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code § 1237.5.
- While the appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) granted trial courts discretion to strike the five‑year prior serious‑felony enhancement and was held by courts to apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments.
- The primary legal question: may a defendant who entered a plea and appealed before SB 1393’s enactment seek remand/resentencing under the new law without a certificate of probable cause?
- The Court of Appeal held that Ellis may pursue relief under SB 1393 without a certificate of probable cause and remanded for a limited remand to allow the trial court to consider striking the enhancement; the judgment was otherwise affirmed.
Issues:
| Issue | People’s Argument | Ellis’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a certificate of probable cause (§ 1237.5) was required to seek remand/relief under SB 1393 when the plea, sentence, and notice of appeal occurred before SB 1393 was enacted | Certificate required; Panizzon and related precedent limit appeals after pleas absent a certificate; Hurlic wrongly decided | No certificate required because SB 1393 is an ameliorative, retroactive change and plea agreements are generally subject to later changes in law (Doe/Harris); Hurlic and Baldivia support no‑certificate rule | No certificate required here: because SB 1393 is retroactive and the plea incorporated applicable future law, defendant may seek SB 1393 relief on appeal without a certificate (court follows Hurlic/Baldivia/Stamps line) |
| Whether remand would be futile given the plea and stipulated sentence | Remand is futile because the court already accepted and imposed the stipulated sentence; any relief would improperly alter the plea bargain | Remand appropriate because trial court was unaware it could exercise discretion; defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made with informed discretion | Remand not futile: limited remand ordered so the trial court can consider whether to exercise its new discretion to strike the enhancement; plea bargain consequences remain relevant but do not bar relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (plea agreements do not generally insulate parties from ameliorative changes in law)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (Cal. 2016) (changes in law intended to apply to convictions by plea may affect plea bargains)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Hurlic, 25 Cal.App.5th 50 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (certificate not required where retroactive ameliorative statute enacted after plea; remand appropriate)
- People v. Baldivia, 28 Cal.App.5th 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (followed Hurlic; allowed raising retroactive relief without certificate)
- People v. Kelly, 32 Cal.App.5th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held certificate required; part of split of authority)
- People v. Stamps, 34 Cal.App.5th 117 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (followed Hurlic/Baldivia; allowed relief without certificate)
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1996) (explains certificate of probable cause requirement and limits on appeals after pleas)
- People v. Gutierrez, 58 Cal.4th 1354 (Cal. 2014) (remand required where trial court could not have exercised informed discretion absent awareness of its power)