37 Cal. App. 5th 602
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Christopher Williams pleaded no contest to two felony robbery counts as part of a negotiated plea and admitted a prior strike; court sentenced him to 30 years and 4 months, including a 5-year serious-felony enhancement under Penal Code § 667(a)(1).
- Williams filed a notice of appeal on May 31, 2018 and did not seek a certificate of probable cause before appealing.
- SB 1393, effective January 1, 2019, amended Penal Code § 1385 to give courts discretion to strike § 667(a)(1) serious-felony enhancements; the change is retroactive under Estrada.
- Courts of Appeal are split whether defendants who pleaded pursuant to a negotiated/stipulated sentence must obtain a certificate of probable cause before seeking remand under SB 1393.
- The court held Williams’ appeal must be dismissed because he failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause; it concluded SB 1393 was not intended to alter stipulated plea bargains without the procedural prerequisite.
Issues
| Issue | Williams' Argument | People/Respondent Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a defendant who entered a negotiated plea needs a certificate of probable cause to appeal for resentencing under SB 1393 | SB 1393 applies retroactively and should allow remand without a certificate; he is not attacking the plea's validity | A certificate of probable cause is required because applying SB 1393 to a stipulated plea challenges the plea's validity and the Legislature did not intend to disturb negotiated sentences | Certificate of probable cause required; appeal dismissed for failure to obtain one |
| Whether SB 1393’s text or history shows intent to alter stipulated plea sentences | Argues SB 1393 should apply regardless of plea status; timing of his appeal (before SB 1393) distinguishes him from some cases | No textual or legislative-history indication SB 1393 was meant to alter negotiated, stipulated sentences; timing does not change need for certificate | No evidence SB 1393 was meant to modify stipulated sentences; timing irrelevant to certificate requirement |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (retroactivity principle for ameliorative criminal statutes)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (Cal. 2013) (statutory application must reflect clear legislative intent to reach prior cases)
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (Cal. 1996) (certificate of probable cause required when an appeal challenges plea validity)
- People v. Galindo, 35 Cal.App.5th 658 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (dismissing appeal for lack of certificate where defendant sought remand under SB 1393)
- People v. Fox, 34 Cal.App.5th 1124 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (holding certificate required for post-enactment challenges under SB 620 and treating application to pleas as challenging plea validity)
- People v. Johnson, 47 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2009) (discussing standards for plea-related challenges)