People v. Wright
31 Cal. App. 5th 749
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Justin Wright pleaded guilty to transporting a controlled substance (§ 11352(a)) under a written plea agreement: a stipulated 11-year term (midterm doubled for a strike + a 3-year § 11370.2(a) enhancement) and dismissal of other counts; he waived the right to appeal "any sentence stipulated herein."
- At sentencing the three-year enhancement was mandatory under § 11370.2(a) based on a prior § 11351.5 conviction.
- Senate Bill No. 180 (effective Jan. 1, 2018) amended § 11370.2(a) to limit the enhancement to prior convictions under § 11380.2; courts held the amendment retroactive to nonfinal judgments.
- Acting pro se, Wright timely appealed; appellate counsel sought a certificate of probable cause (granted), and Wright argued the amended § 11370.2 applied retroactively so the 3-year enhancement is unauthorized.
- The People moved to dismiss the appeal, arguing Wright’s failure to timely obtain a certificate and his express waiver of appeal of the stipulated sentence bar review; they conceded that if appeal proceeds the enhancement must be stricken and Wright resentenced.
Issues
| Issue | Wright's Argument | People/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wright’s broad written waiver of appeal bars review of a sentencing error created by a later change in law | Waiver did not cover unforeseen, future statutory change; retroactive ameliorative amendment not contemplated | Waiver of the stipulated sentence was specific and therefore bars appellate review of any sentence-related error, including future error | Waiver does not apply to a future, unforeseeable change in law; appeal proceeds on this issue |
| Whether amended § 11370.2 applies retroactively to Wright’s nonfinal judgment | Amendment is ameliorative and applies retroactively, so the 3‑year enhancement is unauthorized | If appeal reached merits, People conceded amendment applies retroactively and enhancement must be stricken | Amendment applies retroactively; 3‑year enhancement must be stricken |
| Remedy: whether remand for resentencing is required or enhancement can be simply vacated | No need to remand; strike enhancement now | Remand for resentencing to correct unauthorized enhancement | Court vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing to strike enhancement |
| Whether failure to timely obtain certificate of probable cause bars appellate review | Certificate not required for retroactive change in law affecting sentence; in any event certificate was later made operative | Argued appeal should be dismissed for lack of timely certificate | Court granted request to make certificate operative and did not dismiss on that ground |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Panizzon, 13 Cal.4th 68 (recognition that plea waivers can bar appellate review when the issue is an integral, contemplated part of the negotiated sentence)
- Doe v. Harris, 57 Cal.4th 64 (plea agreements are deemed to incorporate future changes in law; parties are not ordinarily insulated from retroactive statutory changes absent express agreement)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (ameliorative statutory changes apply retroactively to nonfinal judgments absent a saving clause)
- People v. Millan, 20 Cal.App.5th 450 (amendment to § 11370.2 narrowed enhancement scope and applies retroactively)
- Harris v. Superior Court, 1 Cal.5th 984 (discusses plea bargains and incorporation of changes in law relevant to whether a certificate of probable cause is required)