People v. Hankins CA3

Filed 7/31/23 P. v. Hankins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096986

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF21-01141)

v.

WILLIAM BO HANKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant William Bo Hankins pled no contest to robbery and admitted a prior strike in exchange for a stipulated sentence of either four or 10 years, depending on his compliance with the terms of an included Cruz waiver.1 Defendant violated the terms of the waiver and the court imposed the stipulated 10-year sentence, which included the upper term sentence on the robbery count. On appeal, defendant argues this case must be

1 People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247.

1

remanded for resentencing due to changes made to Penal Code2 section 1170, subdivision (b) by Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2021, ch. 731) (Senate Bill 567), claiming the imposition of the upper term sentence violated his constitutional right to a jury trial on any aggravating factors. The People respond defendant’s case must be dismissed because he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause before appealing. We agree with the People and will dismiss the case accordingly. BACKGROUND The prosecution charged defendant with a single count of robbery (§ 211) and alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12) in the form of a 2018 robbery conviction, which was also a serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). On June 9, 2022, the parties entered into a plea agreement. The parties stipulated to a factual basis as contained in the sheriff’s report, which explained defendant had taken several items from Walmart and threatened an employee when confronted. Defendant agreed to plead no contest to the robbery count and admit the prior strike, in exchange for dismissal of all other allegations and two other cases defendant had pending. As part of the agreement, defendant agreed to a Cruz waiver and would be released on his own recognizance until the sentencing hearing. He agreed to obey all laws as part of the waiver, among other things. If defendant complied with the terms of the waiver, he would receive a sentence of four years. If he did not comply with the terms of the waiver, he would receive a sentence of 10 years. Defendant violated the terms of the Cruz waiver, as determined after an August 2022 evidentiary hearing. At the September 7, 2022 sentencing hearing, the court explained it would adopt the stipulated sentence, saying: “A stipulation, once it gets to