People v. Vidano CA3
C076050
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2016Background
- Defendant Juan Angel Vidano pleaded no contest in three cases to various offenses (including first-degree robbery, witness dissuasion, solicitation of murder, and jail assault) under a plea agreement calling for an aggregate state prison term of 20 years 8 months; remaining counts were dismissed.
- The plea agreement specified how the aggregate term would be calculated (e.g., 6 years middle term for robbery + 10-year firearm enhancement + full 3-year middle term for witness-dissuasion under §1170.15 + concurrent 6 years for solicitation + 1 year and 8 months on other counts).
- Before sentencing, the court received a probation report with recommended “recommendations and orders” setting out sentence components; the court announced it would adopt that document by reference rather than orally stating reasons for each sentencing choice.
- The court struck certain fee recommendations, adjusted a restitution fine, and then stated it would impose sentence “specifically and verbatim” as set forth in the probation document, executing that document as reflecting the court’s orders.
- The minute order and abstract of judgment, however, reflected a different calculation than the plea agreement: the witness-dissuasion count was listed as one-third the middle term (1 year) rather than the full middle term, and solicitation was listed as a consecutive 2-year term (one-third) rather than the agreed concurrent 6-year term—thereby imposing an unauthorized sentence component.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed convictions but vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing because the trial court failed to orally pronounce and state reasons for the sentence and imposed a sentence inconsistent with the plea agreement and §1170.15.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court lawfully imposed sentence by incorporating the probation report by reference instead of orally pronouncing judgment and stating reasons | Probation-prepared document memorialized the court’s oral pronouncement; practice simplified complex sentencing and the court executed the document as its oral order | Court improperly incorporated the probation report by reference; it failed to orally pronounce judgment and state reasons on the record | Court: incorporation violated sentencing law; trial court must orally pronounce judgment in defendant’s presence and state reasons for sentencing choices |
| Whether the sentence imposed matched the plea agreement calculation | The imposed aggregate term equaled 20 years 8 months, so no forfeiture or error | The components in the judgment differ materially from the plea agreement and ignore §1170.15, producing an unauthorized sentence | Court: although aggregate number matched, the adopted component calculations violated §1170.15 and thus the imposed sentence was unauthorized; remand for resentencing consistent with plea agreement |
| Whether fines/fees were properly pronounced and itemized on the record | Not argued separately by Plaintiff beyond relying on probation document | Fines and fees must be orally pronounced and itemized as part of the judgment | Court: trial court must orally impose and itemize fines/fees on the record on remand |
| Whether clerks’ minutes and abstract must be corrected | Plaintiff agreed correction to firearm enhancement subdivision | Defendant argued minutes misstate that a regular oral pronouncement occurred | Court: directed correction of abstract to reflect firearm enhancement under proper subdivision; minutes need not be separately resolved now because proper oral pronouncement on remand will control |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mesa, 14 Cal.3d 466 (requirement that court pronounce judgment orally)
- People v. Candelaria, 3 Cal.3d 702 (oral pronouncement requirement)
- People v. Fernandez, 226 Cal.App.3d 669 (incorporation of probation report by reference violates sentencing duties)
- People v. Pierce, 40 Cal.App.4th 1317 (same principle prohibiting mere incorporation)
- People v. High, 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (fines and fees must be pronounced on the record)
- People v. Hester, 22 Cal.4th 290 (limitations on attacking sentences after plea — distinguished)
- People v. Stanley, 10 Cal.4th 764 (forfeiture and need for authority when asserting legal propositions)