People v. Tiznado CA5

California Court of Appeal Nov 19, 2024 No. F087729Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant who receives a specific sentence pursuant to a plea bargain is estopped from challenging that sentence on appeal, even if the sentence is unauthorized, provided the trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction.

Issues

Whether a defendant is estopped from challenging a stayed sentence enhancement that was part of a negotiated plea bargain.
Whether the trial court lacked fundamental jurisdiction to stay the deadly weapon enhancement.

Disposition. dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Because defendant received the sentence he specifically bargained for, he is estopped from attempting to trifle with the courts by challenging the stay and attempting to improve the bargain by striking the one-year sentence.”

Filed 11/19/24 P. v. Tiznado CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F087729 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19907154) v.

GILBERTO TIZNADO, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Alvin M. Harrell III, Judge. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, and Hannah Janigian Chavez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P. J., Smith, J. and De Santos, J.

Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant Gilberto Tiznado (defendant) pled guilty to first degree murder and admitted a deadly weapon enhancement. In accordance with the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life and stayed a one-year sentence for the deadly weapon enhancement. On appeal, defendant contends that the stayed sentence on the deadly weapon enhancement should be stricken because the court lacked the authority to impose a stay. We dismiss this appeal. BACKGROUND On October 19, 2019, defendant attacked his mother with a hammer, apparently while he was experiencing a bout of methamphetamine induced paranoia. Defendant’s mother died as a result of the attack. On October 21, 2019, a felony complaint was filed against defendant. The complaint alleged a single count of first degree murder in violation of Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a).1 The complaint included a deadly weapon enhancement under section 12022, subdivision (b)(1). On November 29, 2023, defendant changed his plea and pled guilty to first degree murder and admitted the deadly weapon enhancement. Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea bargain. The plea bargain provided in relevant part that the sentence on the deadly weapon enhancement would be stayed. On January 4, 2024, a sentencing hearing was held. The trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life for the first degree murder offense and one year on the deadly weapon enhancement. In accordance with the plea bargain, the court stayed the one-year sentence for the deadly weapon enhancement. On March 1, 2024, the Fresno County Superior Court received defendant’s notice of appeal. The notice included a request for a certificate of probable cause. The request for a certificate of probable cause focused primarily on the trial court’s ruling on a

People v. Tiznado CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief