People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685

William Stamps pled guilty to one count of first-degree burglary and admitted one prior serious felony, in exchange for a stipulated nine-year prison term (low term doubled under Three Strikes plus a 5-year serious-felony enhancement); other counts were dismissed.
Stamps filed a timely appeal; the trial court denied a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code §1237.5.
While the appeal was pending, Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended Penal Code §1385 to permit a trial court to strike a serious-felony enhancement in furtherance of justice.
Stamps argued on appeal that SB 1393 should be applied retroactively and the case remanded so the trial court could consider striking the 5-year enhancement.
The Court of Appeal held no certificate was required and SB 1393 applied retroactively and remanded; the California Supreme Court affirmed that no certificate was required and that SB 1393 is retroactive, but modified the remand procedure.
The Supreme Court held Stamps is entitled to a limited remand to seek relief under SB 1393, but a trial court may not unilaterally strike the enhancement while otherwise enforcing the plea; striking the enhancement has consequences (e.g., prosecution may withdraw or plea approval may be rescinded).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a §1237.5 certificate of probable cause was required to pursue this appeal	A certificate is required because the sentence was part of a negotiated plea	No certificate required; claim is a postplea, noncertificate challenge based on a change in law	No certificate required — appeal raises postplea noncertificate grounds (change-in-law claim)
Whether SB 1393 applies retroactively	(AG did not contest ameliorative nature)	SB 1393 is ameliorative and applies retroactively under In re Estrada because the judgment was not final	SB 1393 applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments
Whether the trial court may strike the serious-felony enhancement on remand but otherwise leave the plea bargain intact	The court lacks authority to unilaterally modify a negotiated plea; prosecution’s interests must be protected	The court may strike the enhancement and otherwise preserve the plea	Trial court may not unilaterally strike an enhancement and keep the rest of a negotiated plea intact; doing so has consequences to the plea agreement
Proper remedy/remand procedure	Remand is futile / plea should be insulated	Remand for the court to consider striking the enhancement	Limited remand ordered so defendant can request §1385 relief; if court declines, sentence stands; if court favors striking, prosecution may withdraw or parties may renegotiate, or court may withdraw plea approval

In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (presumption that ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments)
People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (certificate of probable cause required when appeal attacks plea validity)
People v. French, 43 Cal.4th 36 (postplea sentencing errors may be appealed without a certificate when they do not attack plea validity)
People v. Buttram, 30 Cal.4th 773 (issues left open by a plea permit postplea appeals without a certificate)
Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (electorate/legislature may apply ameliorative changes to pleas; Proposition 47 applied retroactively)
People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 497 (trial court discretion under §1385 to strike strikes and Romero framework)
People v. Ellis, 43 Cal.App.5th 925 (limited remand appropriate to allow defendants to seek relief under SB 1393)
People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (when an intervening law eliminates the offense, prosecution may reinstate dismissed counts as consequence to preserve bargaining position)