64 Cal.App.5th 395
Cal. Ct. App.2021Background:
- Houle pleaded no contest to unlawfully possessing a concealed dirk or dagger and admitted a prior strike and two prior prison-term enhancements; he received a stipulated six-year term (four years + two one-year enhancements) as part of a multi-case plea deal.
- At sentencing (Sept. 2019) the one-year-per-prior-prison-term enhancements were authorized by Penal Code § 667.5(b) as then written.
- SB 136 (effective Jan. 1, 2020) narrowed § 667.5(b) to authorize one-year enhancements only for prior prison terms based on sexually violent offenses.
- Houle appealed after the judgment became nonfinal and sought retroactive application of SB 136 to strike his two one-year enhancements.
- The parties and the court agreed SB 136 applies retroactively, but disputed the remedy: Houle asked to simply strike enhancements and leave the stipulated six-year term intact; the People asked remand so the trial court could strike the enhancements and attempt to fashion a sentence close to the original bargain.
- The Court of Appeal followed People v. Stamps and People v. Collins: remand is required for the trial court to strike the § 667.5(b) enhancements, the plea bargain has been rendered unenforceable by operation of law, the parties may renegotiate, and any new sentence on remand cannot exceed the original six-year term.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does SB 136 apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments? | SB 136 is remedial and should apply retroactively. | SB 136 should apply retroactively. | Yes; remedial statute applies to nonfinal judgments under In re Estrada/Nasalga. |
| Remedy when § 667.5(b) enhancement is invalidated: may court strike enhancements and leave plea intact? | Court should remand to strike enhancements and keep benefit of bargain; prosecution already received plea benefits. | Court should simply strike the enhancements and leave the remainder of the stipulated six-year sentence intact. | Remand required; plea is unenforceable as written. Under Stamps, court cannot unilaterally modify the plea—parties must agree to any new bargain or the People may withdraw assent. |
| May trial court impose a sentence on remand greater than original stipulated term? | Trial court should have discretion to fashion a sentence near the original term. | Defendant argues sentence must remain at six years. | Cannot impose a greater sentence than the original six-year cap (Collins controls). |
| May prosecution revive dismissed counts after enhancements are stricken? | People may seek to restore dismissed charges to preserve their bargain, subject to the six-year cap. | Defendant opposes increased exposure. | People may reinstate counts or renegotiate; but any new sentence cannot exceed original bargain. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (remand required; court may not unilaterally alter agreed plea by striking enhancement without prosecution's consent)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (1978) (when judgment is invalidated by later change in law, defendant cannot be resentenced to a greater term than the original plea bargain)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption that ameliorative statutes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (1996) (clarifies Estrada presumption and saving-clause exception)
- People v. Griffin, 57 Cal.App.5th 1088 (2020) (applies Stamps and Collins to SB 136 context; remand and six-year cap affirmed)