People v. Relkin
211 Cal. Rptr. 3d 879
Cal. Ct. App.2016Background
- Defendant Scott Relkin pleaded no contest in two separate Butte County cases for methamphetamine- and hydromorphone-related offenses and admitted prior convictions and prior prison terms.
- Case CM041966 (plea Jan 15, 2015): no contest to three counts, admissions of priors; written plea specified a 17-year maximum for that case.
- Case CM040863 (plea June 12, 2014): no contest to possession for sale, admission of a prior, with a negotiated maximum of 3 years for that case.
- At sentencing the court followed probation’s recommendation and imposed an aggregate county-jail/mandatory supervision term of 17 years 8 months (17 years for CM041966 plus a consecutive 8 months for CM040863). Defendant did not object at sentencing.
- The court also imposed conditions of mandatory supervision (including Conditions No. 6 and 13) and a stayed consecutive term on count 2 (one-third the middle term) that the Court of Appeal later found to be unauthorized and corrected to a stayed full middle term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 17 years 8 months aggregate sentence violated the plea bargain | People: pleas were separate; written agreements imposed a 17-year lid in CM041966 and a 3-year lid in CM040863; aggregate sentence honored bargains | Relkin: reasonably understood plea lid was 17 years total; 17y8m exceeded agreed maximum and should be enforced | Held: plea agreements were separate; defendant understood/accepted consecutive exposure; no breach — claim denied |
| Validity of Condition No. 6 (must get written permission to leave California) | People: travel restriction is reasonably related to drug-sale/transport convictions and public safety | Relkin: infringes right to interstate travel and to work; overly broad | Held: condition is sufficiently precise and reasonably related to preventing recidivism; valid |
| Validity of Condition No. 13 (must report arrests, contacts, incidents with peace officers) | People: condition reasonably requires reporting arrests/incidents and monitoring lifestyle; ordinary contacts not intended to trigger reporting | Relkin: vague/overbroad ("contacts with" too uncertain), risks chilling First Amendment activity and permits arbitrary enforcement | Held: "any contacts with" is unconstitutionally vague/overbroad as written; "any arrests" and "incidents involving" are OK; remanded to modify Condition No.13 to clarify/reporting scope |
| Whether staying a one-third-middle-term on count 2 under §654 was authorized | People: sentence reflected sentencing choices at hearing | Relkin: challenged as part of aggregate sentencing errors | Held: one-third-the-midterm cannot be applied to a stayed (§654) term; appellate court corrected judgment to impose (and stay) the full middle term on count 2 and directed amendment of the abstract of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (remedy required when a plea bargain is breached)
- People v. Shelton, 37 Cal.4th 759 (2006) (plea agreements interpreted as contracts)
- People v. Lent, 15 Cal.3d 481 (1975) (test for validity/reasonableness of probation/parole conditions)
- In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (2007) (vagueness and overbreadth standards for probation conditions)
- In re White, 97 Cal.App.3d 141 (1979) (limitations on travel and the right to travel analyzed)
- People v. Cantrell, 175 Cal.App.4th 1161 (2009) (one-third-midterm rule does not apply to stayed §654 sentences)