California Legal Brief

The Rule of People v. Mitchell is that defendants who agreed to upper term sentences as part of plea bargains may seek retroactive application of Penal Code section 1170(b)'s amended jury trial requirements to their nonfinal judgments, under circumstances where the defendant did not validly waive the later-created statutory rights at the time of the original plea.

Appeal from judgment after plea bargain in Superior Court, Mendocino County.

Defendant Appellant was Sunee Lynn Mitchell — the defendant who drove recklessly while intoxicated, evaded police, and agreed to an upper term sentence as part of a plea bargain before section 1170(b) was amended.

Plaintiff Respondent was The People — the prosecution that argued Mitchell's plea bargain should be enforced in its entirety despite the subsequent statutory changes.

The suit sounded in criminal prosecution for multiple felonies including assault on a peace officer, assault with a deadly weapon, and reckless driving while evading police. Mitchell accepted a plea bargain pleading no contest to one felony count and one misdemeanor, with dismissal of the more serious charges.

The key substantive facts leading to the suit were Mitchell drove intoxicated with a BAC of 0.183%, performed "donuts" in a parking lot, ran over a pedestrian's feet, led police on a high-speed chase through red lights and in oncoming traffic lanes, and nearly collided with a police cruiser during the pursuit.

The procedural result leading to the Appeal: The trial court accepted Mitchell's plea bargain stipulating to an upper term sentence of three years (doubled to six years under Three Strikes), ruling that this was a valid negotiated disposition, but while her case was pending on appeal, the Legislature amended section 1170(b) to require jury trial or stipulation for upper term sentences.

The key question(s) on Appeal: 1. Whether defendants who agreed to upper term sentences in plea bargains may seek retroactive benefit of section 1170(b)'s amended provisions requiring jury findings or stipulation for upper terms 2. Whether Mitchell validly waived section 1170(b)'s requirements when she entered her original plea 3. What remedy is appropriate when section 1170(b) applies retroactively to stipulated upper term sentences

The Appellate Court held that defendants like Mitchell who agreed to upper term sentences before section 1170(b) was amended may invoke the statute's retroactive protections because they could not have knowingly waived rights that did not exist at the time of their plea, and the appropriate remedy is remand allowing the defendant to either waive section 1170(b)'s requirements and keep the original bargain, negotiate a modified plea agreement, or withdraw from the plea entirely.

The case is inapplicable when the defendant entered the plea bargain after section 1170(b) was amended and was properly advised of and waived the jury trial rights, or when the judgment was already final at the time of the statutory amendment.

The case leaves open the applicability of newly enacted section 1171 governing postconviction proceedings and ameliorative statutes, and how that statute might affect the remand options described in this opinion.