People v. Lettice, 221 Cal. App. 4th 139

Background

Lettice was charged with several Vehicle Code offenses; on Feb 17, 2011 he pled guilty to one count (Veh. Code §23153(b)) and admitted a prison prior and one strike; the People agreed to dismiss remaining counts and the plea form noted a possible 14-year maximum but the court had indicated an 8-year sentence.
On the scheduled sentencing date (May 3, 2011) the prosecutor filed an amended information adding a previously unalleged 1976 New Jersey juvenile armed robbery adjudication as a second strike and reasserting a dismissed leaving-the-scene count; the amended information was filed after Lettice had pled.
The trial court announced the amended information in open court but did not expressly approve it under Penal Code §969a, and stated (erroneously) that the People had a statutory right to add the strike after the plea; the court also expressed notice and estoppel concerns and deferred ruling on the People’s oral motion to withdraw from the original plea agreement.
The People later offered and Lettice accepted a new plea on May 24, 2011 yielding a stipulated 14-year sentence; the May 24 plea and sentence were entered without the trial court having exercised the §969a discretion on the record.
On appeal the Fourth Appellate District held the record shows the trial court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to deny the post-plea amendment, so the court failed to exercise discretion as required by Valladoli and §969a; the appellate court reversed, vacated the May 24 plea, and remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion whether to permit the amended information.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the People were required to obtain the trial court's approval before filing an amended information alleging previously uncharged priors after defendant's plea	People argued the amended information was permissible (and the court effectively allowed it) under statutes and prior precedent	Lettice argued §969a and Valladoli require court approval and the record shows no exercise of discretion; trial court thought it had a statutory right to add the strike	Court held §969a requires court order and trial courts have discretion to permit or deny; here the court failed to exercise that discretion on the record
Whether the trial court's failure to exercise discretion requires reversal and remand	People contended any error was harmless or that the court implicitly permitted the amendment	Lettice contended failure to exercise discretion was reversible because the record shows the court believed it had no choice and would likely have denied leave	Court concluded failure to exercise discretion was an abuse and reversal/remand was required because there is a reasonable probability the court would have denied leave
Whether appellate review is barred by plea or lack of objection	People did not assert procedural bar; appellate court may reach the claim	Lettice argued he could appeal with certificate of probable cause and issue is legal	Appellate court exercised discretion to review the claim; Lettice had certificate of probable cause, so appeal permitted
Appropriate remedy when trial court failed to exercise §969a discretion	People argued affirmance; possible waiver	Lettice sought reversal and remand to allow proper exercise of discretion and to vacate the May 24 plea	Court reversed, vacated May 24 plea, remanded for trial court to decide whether to permit the amended information and directed subsequent sentencing or further proceedings accordingly

Key Cases Cited

People v. Valladoli, 13 Cal.4th 590 (1996) (trial court must order amendment under §969a and has discretion to permit or deny; lists factors to consider to protect due process)
People v. Tindall, 24 Cal.4th 767 (2000) (addresses limits on postverdict amendments and discusses §969a/§969.5 authority to add priors prior to sentencing)
People v. Loggins, 132 Cal.App.2d 736 (1955) (amended information filed in open court is presumed filed with leave of court where record is silent)