55 Cal.App.5th 942
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- On August 1, 2019 Hernandez was arrested after threatening a security guard with a knife; charged with assault with a deadly weapon and criminal threats, with multiple prior-strike and prior-prison-term allegations.
- As part of a negotiated plea (Aug. 15, 2019) Hernandez pleaded no contest to count 1, admitted two strike priors and two §667.5(b) prior-prison-term enhancements, and agreed to a specified aggregate 10-year term; remaining charges were dismissed.
- At sentencing (Sept. 13, 2019) the court imposed the upper term (4 years) doubled to 8 for the second strike, plus two consecutive one-year §667.5(b) enhancements, for an aggregate 10 years.
- Senate Bill 136 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) amended §667.5(b) to limit the one-year prior-prison-term enhancement to sexual-violent offenses and applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments.
- Hernandez appealed; the People conceded the §667.5(b) enhancements must be stricken. The Court of Appeal vacated and remanded to strike those enhancements and directed further proceedings consistent with People v. Stamps.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Hernandez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hernandez's §667.5(b) prior-prison-term enhancements are invalid under SB 136 and must be stricken | Conceded the enhancements are invalid and must be stricken under SB 136 | Agreed they must be stricken | Held: Yes; the two one-year §667.5(b) enhancements are invalid under SB 136 and must be stricken (applies retroactively). |
| Remedy after enhancements are stricken — may the court unilaterally reduce the sentence and keep the original plea intact, or may the prosecutor withdraw/seek reinstatement of dismissed charges? | The People argued, following Stamps, the prosecution may withdraw from the plea if the enhancement dismissal materially alters the agreed sentence | Hernandez argued Collins requires the plea remain intact and he cannot be resentenced to more than the original agreed 10 years; prosecution can only refile dismissed counts so long as aggregate sentence does not exceed 10 years | Held: Following People v. Stamps, the court cannot unilaterally alter a material term of an agreed specified sentence; if the court would strike the enhancements the People may agree to modify the bargain or may withdraw assent (and the court may withdraw approval); reinstatement/renegotiation or trial may follow. |
| Whether the court must resolve defendant’s ability-to-pay challenge to fines and fees now (Dueñas claim) | People did not press merits here; urged remand for sentence-related proceedings first | Hernandez argued the court failed to determine ability to pay and requested remand for that finding | Held: Court declined to resolve Dueñas-type claim now because remand may change plea/sentence; left for further proceedings after remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (court may not unilaterally modify a specified-term plea by striking an enhancement; prosecution may withdraw if dismissal materially alters the bargain)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (when legislative change destroys a plea’s predicate, People may reinstate dismissed counts but defendant cannot receive a harsher sentence than originally agreed)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (2016) (Proposition 47 applied to plea convictions; electorate intended relief to bind plea cases, limiting prosecutor’s ability to rescind resentencing relief)
- People v. Barton, 52 Cal.App.5th 1145 (2020) (followed Stamps logic applied to statutory repeal of prior-offense enhancements; plea cannot be unilaterally restructured; parties may renegotiate or prosecution may withdraw)
- People v. Matthews, 47 Cal.App.5th 857 (2020) (contrasting view that court could strike SB 136 enhancements and leave plea intact; disagreed with by the panel here as inconsistent with Stamps)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (2008) (plea bargains are contracts; court approval binds parties and court may not substitute for prosecutor in plea negotiation)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (legislative changes that reduce punishment apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)