People v. Weed CA2/7, B301436

Weed pleaded guilty to false imprisonment by violence, admitted two prior prison-term enhancements under Penal Code §667.5(b); court suspended execution of a five-year sentence (3-year base + two 1-year prior-prison-term enhancements) and placed him on probation.
On April 5, 2019 Payano reported Weed took her Lexus without consent and said he struck her with a backpack and kicked her; she showed a cut on her lip to police.
On August 15, 2019 Payano reported Weed took her BMW without permission; Weed told police he took keys from a hook and refused to return the car when asked.
The court revoked probation and set a revocation hearing; at the hearing Payano recanted portions of her prior statements, denying the assault and saying she had lied to protect Weed.
The trial court credited the officers’ accounts over Payano’s recantation, found by a preponderance that Weed willfully violated probation (unauthorized taking of both cars and use of force on April 5), revoked probation, and imposed the previously suspended five-year prison term; Weed appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Was there substantial evidence to revoke probation?	Evidence (police reports, officers’ testimony, Weed’s admission re BMW) supports violation.	Payano recanted; her hearing testimony undermines police accounts; injuries minor.	Yes. Court may disbelieve recantation; substantial evidence supports willful violations.
2) Was any violation "willful" (defense: believed he had permission)?	Testimony showed Weed knew he needed Payano’s consent and refused to return cars when asked.	Weed claims he believed he had permission / community-property right.	No reasonable doubt; finding of willfulness upheld.
3) Does Senate Bill 136 (limiting §667.5(b) enhancements) apply retroactively?	SB 136 applies to all nonfinal cases; People concede and court agrees.	N/A (defendant seeks retroactive relief).	Yes. SB 136 applies to Weed because his judgment was not final.
4) Remedy after striking enhancements: may court simply reduce sentence or must allow plea renegotiation?	People: dismissal of enhancements requires allowing prosecutor to withdraw or renegotiate plea; court cannot unilaterally preserve remainder.	Weed: court should simply strike the illegal enhancements and leave rest of plea intact.	Court follows Stamps/Hernandez line: dismiss enhancements but cannot unilaterally modify plea; remand to allow parties to withdraw/renegotiate.

People v. Esquivel, 11 Cal.5th 671 (Sup. Ct.) (SB 136 applies to nonfinal cases where suspended prison sentence may be activated)
People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Sup. Ct.) (trial court may not unilaterally modify agreed plea terms by striking enhancements)
In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity presumption for ameliorative statutes)
People v. Hernandez, 55 Cal.App.5th 942 (Ct. App.) (where enhancements are integral to plea, court must dismiss enhancements but may not keep remainder without prosecutorial assent)
People v. France, 58 Cal.App.5th 714 (Ct. App.) (contrasting view that illegalized enhancements should be struck and remainder preserved)