People v. Majstoric CA2/6

Filed 3/16/26 P. v. Majstoric CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. Nos. B338746, B341959 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 23F-02935) (San Luis Obispo County) v.

BRANKO ALEXANDER MAJSTORIC,

Defendant and Appellant.

Branko Alexander Majstoric appeals from the judgment following his no contest plea to conspiracy to bring a controlled substance into a state prison. (Pen. Code,1 §§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573, subd. (a).) He contends the trial court sentenced him contrary to the terms of a negotiated disposition. The parties agree the judgment must be reversed and the case remanded to provide Majstoric the opportunity to withdraw his plea. We agree and reverse.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Majstoric was charged in a felony complaint with selling, furnishing, administering, or giving away a controlled substance to a person in custody, or offering to do so (§ 4573.9; count 1), and conspiracy to bring or send a controlled substance into a custodial facility (§§ 182, subd. (a)(1), 4573; count 2). In April 2023, Majstoric pleaded no contest to count 2 and admitted an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Prior to entering the plea, the prosecutor and the trial court stated Majstoric would receive a “split” sentence of two years in “county jail prison” followed by one year of mandatory supervision (§ 1170, subd. (h)(2) & (5)(B)). Majstoric was not advised of his right to withdraw his plea if the court imposed a more severe sentence. (See § 1192.5, subd. (c).) It does not appear that a written plea form was used. The remaining count and allegations were dismissed, “conditioned on the continuing validity of the plea and admission.” The probation sentencing report was delayed because Majstoric was in custody in Sacramento County. When the report was finally issued one year after the plea, the probation officer recommended a state prison sentence of three years in the present case because Majstoric was serving a prison sentence in the Sacramento case of two years, eight months. At the sentencing hearing in June 2024, Majstoric’s counsel noted the probation recommendation “does seem to deviate from the split,” but said he exchanged emails with the probation officer and “came to the same conclusion.” He said he had “gone over that with [his] client and [they were] ready to proceed.” The court sentenced Majstoric to three years in state prison, to be served consecutively with the Sacramento sentence. One week later, Majstoric filed a notice of appeal, contending the three-year