People v. Stamps
245 Cal. Rptr. 3d 821
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant William Stamps pleaded no contest to one count of residential burglary and admitted a prior serious felony; in exchange he received a stipulated nine-year sentence and dismissal of other counts.
- The imposed term: low term 2 years for burglary doubled under the three strikes/recidivist provisions and a five‑year enhancement under Penal Code § 667(a)(1), producing the agreed nine-year term.
- Sentencing occurred January 10, 2018; defendant timely appealed on March 29, 2018.
- At sentencing, courts lacked discretion to strike § 667(a)(1) five‑year enhancements (former § 1385(b)).
- Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) amended § 1385 to permit trial courts to strike prior serious-felony five‑year enhancements (§ 667(a)(1)); the amendment was intended to apply retroactively.
- The trial court did not exercise that post‑Bill discretion at the original sentencing; the Court of Appeal remanded to allow the trial court to consider striking the enhancement and, if struck, to resentence consistent with statutory limits and the plea bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant may seek retroactive benefit of SB 1393 despite a stipulated sentence and no certificate of probable cause | AG: appeal barred because defendant did not obtain certificate of probable cause and plea fixed sentence | Stamps: plea should be deemed to incorporate subsequent changes in law; SB 1393 applies retroactively and permits relief | Court: allowed appeal; certificate requirement inapplicable where change is retroactive and does not attack plea validity |
| Whether a plea with a stipulated term prevents application of a later‑enacted ameliorative statute | AG: plea bargain is the parties’ agreement and prosecution would lose benefit; agreed sentence should stand | Stamps: absent explicit provision preserving only then‑existing law, pleas incorporate future lawful changes; Doe/Harris authority supports retroactive application | Court: follows Doe/Harris — plea does not bar retroactive ameliorative changes unless agreement expressly limits future law changes |
| Whether remand is required to allow trial court to decide whether to strike the § 667(a)(1) enhancement | AG: remand unnecessary because plea stipulated the sentence or trial court indicated it would not have struck enhancement | Stamps: trial court’s acceptance of plea does not show it definitely would have declined to strike if it had discretion | Court: remand required so trial court can exercise discretion under SB 1393; if enhancement struck, resentence; otherwise reinstate original sentence |
| Whether remand may lead to a sentence exceeding the stipulated term | AG: remand could improperly alter plea bargain | Stamps: resentencing must respect plea limits | Court: on resentencing court retains full discretion but may not impose aggregate term above the stipulated nine years without offering defendant withdrawal of plea |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (parties to a plea are subject to subsequent lawful changes in public policy and retroactive statutes)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (Cal. 2016) (retroactive ameliorative changes like Prop 47 apply notwithstanding prior plea)
- People v. Hurlic, 25 Cal.App.5th 50 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (retroactive statutory changes permit appeal despite no certificate of probable cause)
- People v. Baldivia, 28 Cal.App.5th 1071 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (followed Hurlic; plea challenges based on new law are not attacks on plea validity)
- People v. Garcia, 28 Cal.App.5th 961 (Cal. Ct. App. 2018) (SB 1393 applies retroactively)
- People v. Kelly, 32 Cal.App.5th 1013 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (reached a contrary view on stipulated sentences; court here distinguishes Kelly)
- People v. Enlow, 64 Cal.App.4th 850 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998) (held appeal barred when statutory sunset was part of bargaining landscape)
- People v. Collins, 21 Cal.3d 208 (Cal. 1978) (when Legislature decriminalizes conduct before judgment, People may withdraw from plea because benefit to state is lost)