People v. Linnenbringer CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 30, 2021 No. F080676Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant is entitled to the retroactive benefits of Senate Bill 136 and Assembly Bill 1950, requiring the striking of a prior prison term enhancement and the reduction of a felony probation term, while allowing the trial court and the prosecution the opportunity to withdraw from the original plea agreement.

Issues

Whether the notice of appeal was timely filed and sufficient to vest jurisdiction.
Whether the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Senate Bill 136 to strike a prior prison term enhancement.
Whether the defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of Assembly Bill 1950 to reduce a term of felony probation.
Whether the trial court may unilaterally modify a negotiated plea agreement to conform with ameliorative sentencing changes.

Disposition. remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We vacate the sentence, and remand to the trial court with directions to strike the prior prison term enhancement and impose a term of probation in conformity with Assembly Bill 1950.”

“The sentence is vacated. The matter is remanded to the trial court to strike the prior prison term finding (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), modify the term of probation to conform with Assembly Bill 1950, and permit the People and trial court an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement.”

Filed 6/30/21 P. v. Linnenbringer 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F080676 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR-18-002776) v.

DONALD ALLEN LINNENBRINGER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Thomas D. Zeff, Judge. Joy A. Maulitz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra and Rob Bonta, Attorneys General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Julie Hokans, Lewis A. Martinez, and Louis M. Vasquez, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Poochigian, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Donald Allen Linnenbringer contends on appeal that his one-year prior prison term enhancement should be stricken pursuant to Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b),1 as amended by Senate Bill No. 136 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Senate Bill 136) and that his term of probation should be reduced from three years to two years pursuant to section 1203.1, subdivision (a), as amended by Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019−2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1950). The People argue that the matter should be dismissed for defendant’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal. However, they agree that if the notice of appeal was timely filed, defendant’s prior prison term enhancement should be stricken and the matter should be remanded to the trial court to modify the term of probation. We vacate the sentence, and remand to the trial court with directions to strike the prior prison term enhancement and impose a term of probation in conformity with Assembly Bill 1950. On remand, the People and the trial court shall be afforded an opportunity to accede to the modified term of probation or withdraw approval for the plea agreement. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On April 26, 2019,2 the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed an information charging defendant with second degree burglary (§ 459; count 1) and petty theft (§ 484, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the information alleged defendant had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On October 7, defendant pled guilty on counts 1 and 2 and admitted one prior prison term enhancement. The admitted prior prison term was served for convictions of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and forgery (§ 475, subd. (a)). The other prior prison term enhancement was dismissed.

People v. Linnenbringer CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief