57 Cal.App.5th 1088
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Appellant Ransom Huntley Griffin entered no-contest pleas in three felony dockets in Sept. 2019; one plea included a one-year prior-prison-term enhancement under Penal Code §667.5(b).
- The trial court sentenced Griffin in Oct. 2019 to an aggregate term of 8 years 4 months (including the one-year §667.5(b) enhancement); Griffin appealed.
- Senate Bill 136 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) narrowed §667.5(b) to apply only to priors for sexually violent offenses; the parties agreed the change is retroactive to nonfinal judgments.
- Because Griffin’s prior terms were not for sexually violent offenses, the one‑year §667.5(b) enhancement is unauthorized under SB 136 and must be stricken.
- The parties disputed the remedy: whether the court may simply strike the enhancement and leave the plea bargain intact (Appellant’s position) or must permit the People to withdraw and renegotiate the plea (Respondent’s position).
- The court concluded the enhancement must be stricken, the original plea agreement is unenforceable, the People may withdraw and negotiate a new plea, but any new plea cannot result in a longer sentence than the original agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Griffin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Does SB 136 require striking the §667.5(b) one‑year enhancement? | SB 136 is retroactive; enhancement invalid because priors were not sexually violent. | Same: SB 136 applies retroactively and invalidates the enhancement. | Yes. The §667.5(b) enhancement must be stricken. |
| 2) After striking the enhancement, may the remainder of the plea agreement remain enforceable? | The plea is unenforceable; court must restore status quo ante and the People may withdraw or renegotiate. | Argues the plea’s other terms should remain intact (follow Matthews). | The plea cannot be unilaterally modified; the agreement is unenforceable and the People may withdraw or renegotiate. |
| 3) If parties negotiate a new plea on remand, may the court accept a plea that results in a longer sentence than the original agreement? | People argued they may be allowed to seek comparable relief including reviving counts, but should not be allowed to impose a greater sentence than originally agreed. | Griffin argued the cap should allow leaving remaining agreed terms intact; he sought preservation of his bargain. | The court held a new plea cannot produce a sentence longer than the original plea term; imposing a longer sentence would be an abuse of discretion (applying Collins policy). |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (when law changes to allow courts to strike enhancements, defendant may seek remand but court cannot unilaterally modify plea bargains; People may withdraw)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (when statute retroactively nullifies part of a plea, prosecution may reinstate dismissed counts but defendant’s sentence on remand may not exceed original bargain)
- People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (applied Stamps to SB 136; remand requires restoring status quo and allows People to withdraw)
- People v. Barton, 52 Cal.App.5th 1145 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (followed Stamps in a similar statutory context; plea unenforceable and parties must be returned to status quo ante)
- People v. Matthews, 47 Cal.App.5th 857 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (earlier decision holding court should strike §667.5(b) enhancements and leave remaining plea terms intact)