People v. Tidwell CA3

Filed 11/25/25 P. v. Tidwell CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C101384

v. (Super. Ct. No. 22FE008103)

VERNON LAMONT TIDWELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Vernon Lamont Tidwell pleaded no contest to the acquisition or retention of personal identifying information from 10 or more people with the intent to defraud, and he admitted a prior strike conviction. Under the plea agreement, the trial court would impose a sentence of four years. It was not until after the trial court took defendant’s plea that it discussed the possibility that it could increase the punishment above what was contemplated in the plea agreement, explaining that defendant would be released on a Cruz1 waiver and if he did not appear at sentencing, the trial court would impose the upper term of three years in state prison, doubled to six years for the prior strike conviction. At that point defendant agreed to the Cruz waiver. Defendant

1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1249 (Cruz).

1

failed to appear on the date originally set for sentencing, and the trial court ultimately sentenced him to six years in prison. Defendant now contends the trial court could not impose a more severe punishment than was contemplated in the plea agreement without first giving him an advisement of such a possibility prior to taking his plea, or without an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Finding merit in the contention, we will reverse the judgment and remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings. BACKGROUND Although there was no written plea agreement, during a change of plea hearing the prosecutor articulated the terms of a plea agreement that had been reached by the parties. Defendant would plead to a violation of Penal Code section 530.5, subdivision (c)(3) [the acquisition or retention of personal identifying information from 10 or more people with the intent to defraud];2 the parties agreed defendant would be sentenced to the middle term of two years, doubled based on a prior strike offense, for total of four years in prison; defendant would admit the prior strike conviction; and the parties would agree on a date for sentencing. The stated factual basis for the plea was that during a parole search of a vehicle defendant had been driving, officers found numerous debit and credit cards, including cards issued to other people, and on defendant’s cell phone they found the personal identifying information of more than 30 people. Prior to taking the plea, the trial court advised defendant of the consequences of the plea and defendant’s rights to a trial by jury, to confront witnesses against him, to present evidence, and not to incriminate himself. It did not advise him prior to the plea that it might subsequently increase the punishment contemplated in the plea agreement,