People v. Mathis CA5, F080260

Randall Mathis pled no contest in two Merced County cases (burglary and grand theft) under stipulated pleas that included three one-year prior prison-term enhancements under Penal Code § 667.5(b).
The court suspended the sentences and granted drug-court probation; after termination from drug court the suspended sentences were imposed, resulting in a total term of 6 years 8 months (including the three one-year enhancements).
Senate Bill 136 (eff. Jan. 1, 2020) amended § 667.5(b) to limit prior-prison-term enhancements to prior terms served for sexually violent offenses; the amendment is retroactive to nonfinal cases.
Mathis’s admitted prior terms were for burglary and grand theft, which are not sexually violent offenses; his case was not final on the amendment’s effective date, and the parties agreed the enhancements must be stricken.
The Court of Appeal struck the § 667.5(b) enhancements and—finding remand futile because the plea imposed the maximum possible terms—directed an amended abstract and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does SB 136 require striking prior § 667.5(b) enhancements and apply retroactively?	People: Yes—SB 136 limits § 667.5(b) to sexually violent offenses and applies retroactively to nonfinal cases.	Mathis: Enhancements arose from non‑SV convictions and must be stricken under SB 136.	Struck—SB 136 applies retroactively and enhancements for non‑SV offenses must be removed.
If an agreed-upon sentence portion is stricken, must the case be remanded for full resentencing?	People: Generally resentencing is required after sentence change, but plea‑agreement limits can prevent full resentencing.	Mathis: The plea fixed the punishment; court may not modify the agreed sentence beyond removing the unlawful enhancements.	No full resentencing here; plea‑agreement principles constrain modification—remand only required in certain circumstances.
Must the court remand to let the parties rescind the plea when an enhancement is stricken, or may it simply strike and leave the remainder?	People: Remand is required unless rescission would be futile or the maximum sentence was imposed.	Mathis: Remand unnecessary—maximum possible terms were imposed and rescission would be futile.	No remand: Because the plea imposed maximum possible terms, remand to allow rescission would be futile; court struck enhancements and affirmed as modified.

People v. Lopez, 42 Cal.App.5th 337 (2019) (ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively to nonfinal cases)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (1965) (presumption of retroactivity for ameliorative criminal statutes)
People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (2018) (general rule requiring full resentencing when changed circumstances affect sentence)
People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (2020) (remedies when a statutory change affects an agreed sentence; legislature may bind the People)
People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (2008) (plea agreements are contracts; courts cannot later unilaterally modify approved plea terms)
People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (2020) (application of SB 136 to plea cases; analysis of remand necessity)
Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (2013) (plea bargains do not insulate parties from subsequent changes in law)