People v. Bobbit

[447]Opinion

CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J. In exchange for dismissal of other charges and enhancements and a sentencing lid of 12 years and eight months, defendant Terrance Stephen Bobbit pled no contest to one count of sale of cocaine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) and one count of offering to sell cocaine (ibid.) and admitted that he had suffered a prior serious felony conviction. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, 1192.7, subd. (c).)

The court sentenced defendant to the maximum term permitted under the plea agreement. Defendant thereafter filed a notice of appeal in which he appeals “from all pre-trial rulings, all rulings made at the time of defendant’s plea and the Court’s sentence.” Defendant did not seek, nor was he granted, a certificate of probable cause. (Pen. Code, § 1237.5.)1

The ultimate issue raised on appeal relates to the trial court’s authority to impose an upper term sentence in light of Blakely v. Washington (2004) 542 U.S. 296 [159 L.Ed.2d 403, 124 S.Ct. 2531],

This argument is not cognizable on appeal because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. “ ‘[A] challenge to a negotiated sentence imposed as part of a plea bargain is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity of the plea itself’ and thus requires a certificate of probable cause. [Citation.]” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766 [37 Cal.Rptr.3d 354, 125 P.3d 290] (Shelton), quoting People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 79 [51 Cal.Rptr.2d 851, 913 P.2d 1061].) “[T]he specification of a maximum sentence or lid in a plea agreement normally implies a mutual understanding of the defendant and the prosecutor that the specified maximum term is one that the trial court may lawfully impose and also a mutual understanding that, absent the agreement for the lid, the trial court might lawfully impose an even longer term.” (Shelton, supra, at p. 768.) “[A] provision recognizing the defendant’s right to ‘argue for a lesser term’ is generally understood to mean only that the defendant may urge the trial court to exercise its sentencing discretion in favor of imposing a punishment that is less severe than the maximum punishment authorized by law.” (Ibid.) “Of course, a prosecutor and a defendant may enter into a negotiated disposition that expressly recognizes a dispute or uncertainty about the [448]