Segura entered into a plea bargain where he pleaded no contest to one count of domestic violence, his prior strike was dismissed, and the trial court granted him probation on the condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail. The plea form specified that the offense would not be a strike in the future. Segura was advised of the possible immigration consequences of his plea. A few months later, he filed a motion to reduce the jail term because the Department of Homeland Security (formerly the INS) had commenced deportation proceedings because he had been convicted of a crime of violence for which the sentence was at least one year. The trial court denied the motion because the jail term had been part of the plea agreement which all parties had agreed to. On appeal, Segura contended that the record demonstrates the trial court failed to recognize it had discretion to make the requested modification, and that denial of the motion was an abuse of discretion. The appellate court agreed. The trial court retained the discretion to alter the length of the jail term as a function of its ability to modify the terms of probation. Because the trial court apparently misunderstood the scope of its authority in a plea bargain case, remand was required.