People v. Chagolla CA6

Filed 3/26/21 P. v. Chagolla CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047707 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1905080)

v.

JOHNNY JESSE CHAGOLLA,

Defendant and Appellant. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant Johnny Jesse Chagolla pleaded no contest to a count of reckless driving while evading a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.1, 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1) and misdemeanor hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 2). He also admitted an allegation that he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)).1 Chagolla entered his plea with the understanding that he faced a maximum term of three years in prison for counts 1 and 2. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered Chagolla to complete three years of formal probation and to serve six months in county jail. On appeal, Chagolla argues that Senate Bill No. 136 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limits prior prison term enhancements to sexually violent offenses, retroactively applies to his case and requires that we strike his prior prison term enhancement and reduce his potential maximum prison term to two years. Chagolla also filed a supplemental brief arguing that he is entitled to relief under Assembly Bill No. 1950

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which limits the term of felony probation to two years for certain offenses. We strike Chagolla’s prior prison term enhancement but conclude that he is not entitled to any other relief under Senate Bill No. 136 because his plea agreement did not incorporate a sentence for his prior prison term enhancement. We also conclude that Chagolla may be entitled to relief under Assembly Bill No. 1950. Therefore, we reverse the order of probation and remand the matter back to the trial court. I. BACKGROUND2 A. The Complaint On March 18, 2019, Chagolla was charged by complaint with a count of reckless driving while evading a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.1, 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 2), and misdemeanor driving when a license is suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 3). The complaint also alleged that Chagolla had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)) for committing second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b)). B. The Plea On September 30, 2019, Chagolla signed and initialed an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form. Chagolla agreed to plead no contest to counts 1 and 2 with the understanding that he would face a maximum prison term of three years, be placed on three years of formal probation, and serve six months in county jail. That same day, Chagolla pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted that he had served a prior prison term under section 667.5, subdivision (b). C. Sentencing On October 24, 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel requested that the trial court strike Chagolla’s prior prison term enhancement due to a