83 Cal.App.5th 1051
Cal. Ct. App.2022Background
- On Nov. 29, 2020, Mitchell drove recklessly while evading police, nearly struck an officer, and registered BAC .183.
- Charged with multiple offenses including assault on an officer, Veh. Code §2800.2 (reckless evading), and DUI with a .15+ enhancement; a prior second‑degree robbery strike was alleged.
- July 15, 2021: Mitchell entered a stipulated no‑contest plea to Veh. Code §2800.2 (count 4) and Veh. Code §23152(b) (count 6), admitted the strike; parties agreed to an aggregate six‑year term (upper term 3 years doubled by strike), with count 6 concurrent; other counts dismissed.
- Aug. 11, 2021: Court sentenced per plea and imposed fines: $1,800 restitution (§1202.4), $5,129 (Veh. Code §2800.2), and $2,622.08 (Veh. Code §23536).
- On appeal after SB 567 (effective Jan. 1, 2022), Mitchell sought retroactive resentencing under amended §1170(b) (to a middle term) and challenged the two vehicle/DUI fines as resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amended §1170(b) (SB 567) requires resentencing of a term imposed pursuant to a stipulated plea | People: SB 567 may be retroactive but does not warrant relief because the sentence was set by a binding stipulated plea (court had no discretionary selection of term) | Mitchell: SB 567 applies retroactively and she is entitled to reduction from upper to middle term (3→2, doubled to 4) | Court: No relief — plea fixed the sentence; court did not exercise §1170 discretion; Sixth Amendment concern in Cunningham does not arise where defendant waived trial rights in a stipulation |
| Whether the $5,129 fine (Veh. Code §2800.2) should be stricken for ineffective assistance | People: Fine was within statutory range, followed probation recommendation, and appropriate given conduct | Mitchell: Counsel failed to object (misstated the fine as mandatory), so fine should be stricken | Court: No prejudice shown; amount lawful and within range; Mitchell offers no record evidence court would have reduced or struck it |
| Whether the $2,622.08 DUI fine (Veh. Code §23536) should be reduced for ineffective assistance | People: Amount is within statutory range (including mandatory penalties/assessments); probation recommended similar amount; court could have imposed more | Mitchell: Counsel should have objected given indigency; likely would have resulted in lower ($1,408) fine | Court: No demonstrable prejudice; fine within permissible range; counsel may have made a tactical choice; other fines imposed suggest court would not have picked the minimum |
Key Cases Cited
- Cunningham v. California, 549 U.S. 270 (2007) (facts increasing punishment must be jury‑found beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two‑part test for ineffective assistance of counsel)
- People v. Brooks, 58 Cal.App.5th 1099 (2020) (no retroactive relief under new sentencing consideration where sentence imposed by stipulated plea)
- People v. Flores, 73 Cal.App.5th 1032 (2022) (remand where court exercised discretion at sentencing in open plea and SB 567 produced relief)
- People v. Wilson, 164 Cal.App.4th 988 (2008) (discussion of SB 40 amendments giving judges broad sentencing discretion)
- People v. Blomdahl, 16 Cal.App.4th 1242 (1993) (tactical decisions by counsel can defeat ineffective assistance claims)
- People v. Williams, 44 Cal.3d 883 (1988) (defendant must prove prejudice as a demonstrable reality)
- People v. Mitchell, 26 Cal.4th 181 (2001) (oral judgment controls over minute order/abstract)