People v. Rocha CA3

Filed 11/18/22 P. v. Rocha CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C096172

v. (Super. Ct. No. 21F6772)

JOSHUA MICHAEL ROCHA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joshua Michael Rocha entered into a plea agreement in which he pleaded no contest to felony false imprisonment and misdemeanor resisting a peace officer and admitted a prior strike conviction in exchange for probation including a residential treatment program, and a six-year “lid” if he did not complete the treatment program. After defendant failed to complete the treatment program, the trial court

1

imposed an upper term of three years for the false imprisonment conviction, doubled to six years for the strike. Defendant now contends he is entitled to the application of Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) because the lid in the plea agreement did not prevent the trial court from exercising its discretion to impose a lower term. We agree. We will reverse the sentence and remand for a full resentencing. The parties assert that if the trial court imposes less than a six-year term on remand, the People will be entitled to withdraw from the plea agreement consistent with People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685 (Stamps). We disagree with the parties on this issue. Because the plea agreement involved a lid and not a stipulated term, the application of Senate Bill No. 567 on remand, without more, would not entitle the People to withdraw from the plea agreement. BACKGROUND Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of felony false imprisonment (Pen. Code, § 236)1 and two counts of resisting, delaying, and obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). He also admitted a prior strike conviction. The plea agreement indicated a six-year lid if defendant failed to complete probation and a residential treatment program. Defendant agreed to the terms of the plea agreement with a Cruz2 waiver. Within two months, defense counsel notified the trial court that defendant was no longer in the treatment program. Defendant subsequently appeared before the trial court and admitted he did not complete the treatment program.