35 Cal. App. 5th 658
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Sammuel Paul Galindo pled no contest to mayhem and admitted two prior serious-felony convictions and a strike pursuant to a negotiated plea promising a stipulated 19‑year prison term. The trial court sentenced him to 19 years on May 15, 2018.
- Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause from the trial court; the trial court denied his request for such a certificate.
- Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended Penal Code §§ 667 and 1385 to give trial courts discretion to strike or dismiss prior serious‑felony conviction enhancements and is retroactive to judgments not yet final.
- Galindo appealed seeking remand for resentencing under Senate Bill 1393 to permit the trial court to consider striking his prior serious‑felony enhancements.
- The Attorney General moved to dismiss the appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause; the Court of Appeal considered an emerging split of authority among appellate panels about whether a certificate is required when the sentence was stipulated.
- The court concluded the appeal must be dismissed because the stipulated 19‑year term was an integral part of the plea, and an attack on that sentence is, in substance, a challenge to the plea requiring a certificate of probable cause.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Senate Bill 1393 entitles a defendant sentenced under a stipulated plea to a remand for resentencing | SB 1393 is retroactive and therefore entitles defendant to have the court exercise discretion to strike prior serious‑felony enhancements | Stipulated plea fixed the sentence; a remand would undermine the plea bargain unless a certificate of probable cause is obtained | SB 1393 is retroactive generally, but where a specific sentence was stipulated, seeking resentencing is an attack on the plea and requires a certificate of probable cause |
| Whether failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause bars appeal seeking remand under SB 1393 | Certificate is not required because the legislative change applies retroactively to pleas and plea agreements incorporate subsequent changes in law | Certificate requirement applies strictly; stipulated sentences are integral to pleas so appeals challenging them require a certificate | The certificate requirement applies and the appeal is dismissed for lack of one |
| Whether retroactivity doctrine overrides § 1237.5 certificate requirement | Retroactivity should permit resentencing without certificate because plea agreements contemplate subsequent law changes | § 1237.5 and plea‑agreement principles remain applicable; no indication Legislature intended to free stipulated pleas from certificate rules | Retroactivity does not nullify § 1237.5 where the defendant agreed to a specific sentence |
| Whether courts should follow Hurlic/Baldivia (remand) or Fox/Kelly (dismiss) | Follow Hurlic/Baldivia: remand for resentencing under analogous firearm‑enhancement cases | Follow Fox/Kelly: dismiss appeals that attack stipulated sentences without certificate | The court follows Fox/Kelly and dismisses the appeal for failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Kelly, 32 Cal.App.5th 1013 (2d Dist.) (rejecting retroactivity argument to avoid certificate requirement and dismissing appeal)
- People v. Stamps, 34 Cal.App.5th 117 (4th Dist.) (remanding for resentencing under SB 1393)
- People v. Fox, 34 Cal.App.5th 1124 (4th Dist.) (holding certificate required where sentence was stipulated; dismissing appeal)
- People v. Hurlic, 25 Cal.App.5th 50 (1st Dist.) (concluding retroactivity allowed remand without certificate for stipulated sentence)
- People v. Baldivia, 28 Cal.App.5th 1071 (1st Dist.) (following Hurlic; remanding for resentencing under SB 620)
- People v. Buttram, 30 Cal.4th 773 (Supreme Court) (explaining when certificate not required for challenges to post‑plea discretionary sentencing)
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (Supreme Court) (holding certificate required where sentence is an integral part of plea bargain)
- People v. Cunningham, 49 Cal.App.4th 1044 (1st Dist.) (denying remand under retroactive rule where defendant had stipulated sentence)
- People v. Mendez, 19 Cal.4th 1084 (Supreme Court) (directing strict application of § 1237.5 certificate requirement)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Supreme Court) (discussing incorporation of later changes in law into plea agreements)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (Supreme Court) (analyzing when post‑plea statutory changes apply to plea agreements)