People v. Williams CA1/1

Filed 7/11/23 P. v. Williams CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, A166550 v. (Humboldt County Super. ZACHARY LEE WILLIAMS, Ct. No. CR2100730) Defendant and Appellant.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, appellant Zachary Lee Williams (Williams) pleaded guilty to felony infliction of a corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship (Pen. Code,1 § 273.5, subd. (a)) and misdemeanor battery of the same person (§ 243, subd. (e)(1)). In this appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in sentencing him to four years’ probation instead of the three years’ probation contemplated by the written plea agreement that the prosecution and the trial court had accepted. We agree and therefore remand the matter for the trial court to correct the error. The parties are familiar with the facts and our opinion does not meet the criteria for publication. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1105(c).) Consequently, we resolve the cause before us, consistent with constitutional

All subsequent statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise noted.

1

requirements, in an abbreviated opinion with reasons stated. (Cal. Const., art. VI, § 14; Lewis v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1232, 1262 [“ ‘An opinion is not a controversial tract, much less a brief in reply to the counsel against whose views we decide. It is merely a statement of conclusions, and of the principal reasons which have led us to them.’ [Citation.]”].) I. DISCUSSION Williams argues that the trial court erred by imposing a sentence contrary to the terms of the written plea agreement the court had already accepted. “Acceptance of [a plea] agreement binds the court and the parties to the agreement.” (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930, italics added.) Here, the trial court accepted a plea agreement that specified a three-year term of probation. Four weeks later, the trial court sentenced Williams to four years’ probation. However, because the trial court had accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, it lacked jurisdiction to alter them. (Id. at p. 931.) For that reason, the trial court “erred by imposing a sentence exceeding that to which defendant had agreed.” (People v. Kim (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1355, 1362.) The People do not so much resist this straightforward analysis as attempt to side-step it. First, they contend that our court lacks jurisdiction to decide the question. Second, they argue that appellant forfeited any appellate challenge to the four-year sentence by failing to object at the sentencing hearing. And third, they claim that “the record does not unambiguously support” the notion that the plea agreement was violated. We find none of these arguments persuasive. A. Jurisdiction The People’s challenge to our jurisdiction concerns Williams’s notice of appeal filed on Optional Judicial Council form CR-120. In that filing,