Skip to content
Name: People v. Carrillo (2024) 100 Cal.App.5th 793
Case #: F084751
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 5 DCA
Opinion Date: 03/15/2024

A motion to vacate a conviction or sentence under Penal Code section 1473.7 may be based on the defendant’s failure to meaningfully understand or defend against the adverse immigration consequences of a probation violation. In 2002, after a trial, Carrillo was convicted of assault with a firearm and sentenced to probation and 301 days in jail. In 2007, Carrillo admitted a violation of probation, and was sentenced to 90 days consecutive. Because defendant’s total sentence (391 days) now exceeded one year due to the probation violation and was now an “aggravated felony” (a crime of violence for which the term…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. De La Rosa Burgara (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1054
Case #: H049363
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023

The changes made by Senate Bill No. 567 to Penal Code section 1170(b) apply retroactively to convictions reached by plea agreements providing for a stipulated sentence. As part of a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded no contest to charges of assault with a deadly weapon and hit-and-run driving resulting in permanent, serious injury after he purposely hit a person with his car. The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate stipulated sentence of eight years in prison, which included a four-year upper term for his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal, defendant argued the postsentencing enactment of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hall (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 1084
Case #: A165406
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 12/13/2023

Senate Bill No. 567’s amendments to Penal Code section 1170(b)(1) do not require the prosecution to “plead” aggravating factors that it intends to urge at sentencing. In 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to two counts of committing lewd or lascivious acts on a child under the age of 14 years (§ 288(a)). At sentencing, the court found no mitigating factors and seven aggravating factors set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 4.421, and sentenced defendant to 10 years in prison, which included the upper term on one of the two counts. On appeal, defendant argued the aggravating factors found…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coddington (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 562
Case #: A166124
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/17/2023

Defendant who was resentenced under Penal Code section 1172.75 (to strike prior prison term enhancement) was entitled to a full resentencing, but further reductions of his sentence under other recent ameliorative legislation may require setting aside his guilty plea under Stamps. In May 2017, as part of a negotiated plea, defendant pleaded guilty to a felony offense with enhancements. In 2022, the trial court granted defendant’s motion under section 1172.75 to vacate his prior prison term enhancement and reduced his sentence by one year. On appeal, he argued that the trial court failed to provide him with a full sentencing…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Coca (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 451
Case #: E079703
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/16/2023

Trial court erred in granting defendant’s Penal Code section 1473.7 motion to vacate her misdemeanor conviction where defendant did not demonstrate the conviction had the potential of subjecting her to removal. In 2022, defendant filed a petition under section 1473.7 to vacate her 2008 misdemeanor conviction for receiving stolen property (§ 496(a)). Over the District Attorney’s objection, the trial court granted the motion and vacated defendant’s conviction. The People appealed. Held: Reversed. To vacate a conviction under section 1473.7, the movant must establish that the challenged conviction “is currently causing or has the potential to cause removal or the denial of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Harrell (2023) 95 Cal.App.5th 161
Case #: E080838
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/01/2023

In light of recent amendments to Penal Code section 1170.91, which permits military veterans to petition for resentencing, a veteran serving a stipulated sentence according to a plea agreement is not categorically ineligible for relief. In 2001, petitioner entered into a plea bargain, wherein he pleaded guilty to robbery and sentencing enhancements, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 28 years. In 2023, Harrell filed a second petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1170.91, which allows a convicted veteran suffering from a specified disorder as a result of his or her military service to petition for resentencing, so that the…

View Full Summary
Name: CDCR v. Superior Court (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 1025
Case #: A166559
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 08/25/2023

Superior court did not have authority to accept a negotiated plea deal that would place lifetime parolee on probation for a new criminal offense instead of remanding him to CDCR’s custody. While defendant was released on lifetime parole, he committed felony offenses and a criminal case was initiated. The People and CDCR also each filed their own petition for revocation of defendant’s parole. The superior court accepted a negotiated disposition in the criminal case and placed defendant on felony probation. As part of the plea agreement, the superior court also dismissed the two pending parole revocation petitions at the People’s…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Marquez (2023) 93 Cal.App.5th 704
Case #: D080411
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/18/2023

People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, does not require the same judge who approves a plea bargain also determine the amount of victim restitution. Marquez pleaded guilty to several offenses and was sentenced to a prison term. A hearing on victim restitution was held several months later before a different judge. At the hearing, Marquez objected because she had not signed an Arbuckle waiver. The judge overruled the objection and ordered her to pay victim restitution. She appealed. Held: Affirmed. In Arbuckle, the court was concerned with preserving a defendant’s “reasonable expectation” that the same judge who approves a plea…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961
Case #: S271057
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 06/26/2023

Opinion by: Justice Corrigan (unanimous decision)

Assembly Bill No. 1950 applies retroactively to all nonfinal cases. In 2018, defendant was charged with second degree robbery and faced a maximum sentence of five years in prison. Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded to second degree burglary in exchange for dismissal of the robbery count and imposition of a three-year probationary term. While the appeal was pending, AB 1950 reduced the maximum length of probation for most felonies to two years, effective 1/1/21. The Court of Appeal concluded the probation limit applied to defendant retroactively but that People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685 required…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Curiel (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 1160
Case #: B317814
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 06/02/2023
Subsequent History: Ordered published 6/29/2023

Despite mandatory language in her plea agreement that defendant “must expect” deportation if she was not a U.S. citizen, the evidence corroborated that defendant prejudicially did not meaningfully understand the consequences of her plea, requiring the trial court to grant her Penal Code section 1473.7 motion and vacate her convictions. In 2008, Curiel and her husband used the personal identification information and paycheck stub of a victim to purchase two vehicles. Curiel pleaded no contest to identity theft and other charges, in exchange for probation, community service, and no jail time. The plea stated that if she was not a…

View Full Summary