People v. Ruizmoreno CA3

Filed 11/7/24 P. v. Ruizmoreno CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C099053

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 22F01793, 20F4108, 21F3309, 22F1793, v. CRF2004108, CRF2103309)

ISRAEL IGNACIO RUIZMORENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

This appeal arises from four separate cases in which defendant Israel Ignacio Ruizmoreno pled no contest to multiple offenses in two separate plea agreements. The second plea agreement is the operative plea agreement on appeal. Defendant claims the trial court erred by imposing a sentence that exceeded the terms of the operative plea agreement. As such, he argues the case should be remanded to the trial court so that he may withdraw the plea or obtain specific performance of the plea agreement. We agree and remand.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because of the nature of the issues on appeal, the substantive facts underlying the convictions are not relevant and therefore not recounted here. In two of the cases, defendant was charged with unlawful taking of a vehicle and grand theft of personal property (theft case), and resisting a peace officer by force, three counts of misdemeanor obstructing an officer, and misdemeanor battery on an officer (resisting by force case). In the third case, defendant was charged with misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer (obstructing an officer case). Defendant pled no contest to unlawful taking of a vehicle, resisting a peace officer by force, and misdemeanor obstructing a peace officer. The trial court dismissed the remaining charges. The plea form in the first three cases included the following term, to which defendant initialed indicating he understood and agreed: “[T]he plea agreement in item 2 (on pages 1 and 2) is based on the facts before the court. I understand that if the court approves this plea agreement the approval of the court is not binding, and that the court may withdraw its approval of the plea agreement upon further consideration of the matter. I understand that if the court withdraws its approval of this plea agreement I will be allowed to withdraw my plea. (Pen. Code, § 1192.5.)” During the sentencing hearing for the theft, resisting by force, and obstructing an officer cases, the trial court explained to defendant that he would receive two years of informal probation by entering the plea agreement and clarified, “[I]f you were to violate probation, what could happen is you could receive up to three years and eight months in jail as a result of this plea. That’s the worst-case scenario.” Defendant confirmed he understood the trial court’s admonition. The trial court found defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his rights and accepted his plea. It placed defendant on two years of informal probation and dismissed the remaining charges.