People v. Gonzalez CA2/4 ( 2024 )

Filed 10/15/24 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for
publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication
or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B334135
(Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MA065362)
v.
ARMANDO GONZALEZ,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
Emily J. Cole, Judge. Affirmed as Modified.
Stanley Dale Radtke, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General,
Kenneth C. Byrne, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and
Julie A. Harris, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
At a probation violation hearing, the trial court ordered appellant
Armando Gonzalez (Gonzalez) to serve a three-year jail sentence and remain
on probation afterward until January 2028, pursuant to a plea agreement
reached in 2015. Gonzalez challenges the order, arguing that the law now
limits probation terms to two years. We agree, and therefore direct the trial
court to reduce Gonzalez’s probation term to two years.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In February 2015, Gonzalez was charged with one count of identity
theft (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)).1 In May 2015, Gonzalez entered a plea of
no contest. The court sentenced Gonzalez to three years in state prison, but
suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for five
years.
In January 2016, the trial court revoked Gonzalez’s probation and
issued a bench warrant. In August 2023, Gonzalez appeared before the court
and was remanded into custody.
In September 2023, the trial court held a probation violation hearing.
The court terminated probation, imposed the previously stayed three-year
sentence (now to be served in county jail), and ordered Gonzalez to remain on
probation until January 20, 2028.
Gonzalez timely appealed.
1 All future statutory references are to the Penal Code, unless otherwise
stated.
2
DISCUSSION
In 2020, the legislature amended section 1203.1 to impose a two-year
limit on probation terms.2 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2.) Gonzalez argues that
this limitation should apply retroactively to shorten his probation period.
The People do not directly respond to this argument.
Instead, the People suggest that the probation violation hearing in
September 2023 “reinstated” Gonzalez’s plea bargain as if it had been made
at that time. Therefore, they argue that the appeal must be dismissed
because Gonzalez failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause. In the
alternative, they argue that the plea agreement was illegal and therefore this
court should remand the case with directions to renegotiate Gonzalez’s plea.
Because the People provide no support for the premise that the probation
violation hearing in September 2023 “reinstated” Gonzalez’s plea bargain,
their arguments are unpersuasive.
I. Certificate of Probable Cause
A defendant who has pled no contest must ordinarily obtain a
certificate of probable cause before appealing their conviction. (§ 1237.5.)
However, no such certificate is required where the appeal raises post-plea
issues that do not challenge the validity of the plea. (People v. Panizzon
(1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 75–76.) An appeal does not challenge the validity of a
plea, and therefore requires no certificate, where a defendant “seeks relief
because the law subsequently changed to his potential benefit.” (People v.
Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 698.)
That is what happened here. Gonzalez made his plea agreement in
2015. In 2020, the law changed to his potential benefit. He now seeks relief
2 There are certain exceptions which do not apply here.
3
based on that change. He is not required to obtain a certificate of probable
cause.
The People do not explain why the probation violation hearing in 2023
would renew the plea agreement, or why the court should view the agreement
as if it had been made at that time. The People cite no authority for either
proposition. Nor does the record of the hearing reflect any such renewal, or
any negotiations concerning the plea agreement. The record simply shows
the court imposed the sentence agreed upon in 2015.
We decline to dismiss the appeal for lack of a certificate of probable
cause.
II. Remedy
Where a trial court approves a plea bargain which was illegal when it
was made, the proper remedy is to withdraw the approval and remand to
allow the parties to negotiate a different, legal disposition. (People v.
Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 974.) On the other hand, where the
agreement was lawful when made but the law is subsequently changed, the
court must ask whether the legislature intended the change to apply to
existing plea agreements. (Id. at p. 975.) If so, the proper remedy is to
modify the affected terms “to conform with the new law while maintaining
the remainder of the plea agreement.” (Id. at p. 963.)
Here, as already discussed, the plea agreement was made in 2015 and
was lawful at that time. The California Supreme Court has held that the
2020 amendments to section 1203.1 were intended to apply to any plea
agreement not yet final on appeal. (Prudholme, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 963.)
4
It is undisputed that the agreement here never became final on appeal.3
Therefore, the appropriate remedy is to reduce Gonzalez’s probationary term
to two years.
DISPOSITION
Pursuant to section 1203.1, the defendant’s five-year probation term
must be reduced to two years. The trial court is directed to amend its records
to reflect this modification. The order is otherwise affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
ZUKIN, J.
WE CONCUR:
COLLINS, Acting P. J.
MORI, J.
3 The agreement was made in 2015, probation was revoked in 2016, and
the violation hearing occurred in 2023; there was no appeal prior to this one.
5