People v. Lee CA3, C091520

Defendant Mister Lee pleaded no contest to pimping (Pen. Code §266h) and being a felon in possession of a firearm (§29800) and admitted a §186.22(b)(1)(A) gang enhancement.
At plea hearing the trial court repeatedly assured Lee he would receive no more than a total of 4 years 4 months and stated it would “impose” the gang enhancement and then “strike the punishment.”
At sentencing the court imposed 3 years (upper term) for the firearm offense and 1 year 4 months for pimping (total 4 years 4 months) and also imposed and stayed a 3-year gang enhancement.
Lee appealed, arguing the court lacked authority to impose and stay the §186.22 enhancement and that the enhancement must be stricken consistent with the plea.
The People agreed the enhancement could not properly be both imposed and stayed and asked for remand so the trial court could exercise or decline to exercise its §186.22(g) discretion; Lee asked that the enhancement be stricken per the plea.
The Court of Appeal held the trial court had effectively exercised its discretion by accepting the plea promise that Lee would receive no more than 4 years 4 months, and directed the abstract of judgment be amended to strike the punishment for the gang enhancement; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court could lawfully "impose and stay" a §186.22(b)(1)(A) gang enhancement after accepting a plea that guaranteed a 4-year-4-month aggregate sentence	The People conceded imposing-and-staying was improper but urged remand so the trial court could expressly exercise its §186.22(g) discretion to strike or not strike the enhancement	Lee argued the plea’s material term required the enhancement punishment be stricken (to honor the agreed 4y4m sentence)	The court held the plea acceptance constituted the court’s exercise of discretion to strike; the punishment must be stricken. Judgment affirmed and abstract of judgment amended to remove the enhancement punishment.

People v. Vega, 214 Cal.App.4th 1387 (2013) (trial court may not lawfully impose and stay a §186.22 enhancement; enhancement mandatory unless struck under §186.22(g))
People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (2008) (negotiated plea agreements are interpreted as contracts and bind the court)
People v. Shelton, 37 Cal.4th 759 (2006) (plea agreement treated as a contract under general contract principles)
People v. Martin, 51 Cal.4th 75 (2010) (trial court is bound by material terms of an accepted negotiated plea)
People v. Francis, 98 Cal.App.4th 873 (2002) (appellate courts may infer implied findings necessary to support the judgment)
In re Marriage of Arceneaux, 51 Cal.3d 1130 (1990) (lower-court judgments are presumed correct on appeal)