Opinion
C085967
07-17-2018
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEPHEN EARL WISE, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super. Ct. No. 17CR25708)
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant Stephen Earl Wise pled no contest to identity theft and admitted he had a prior conviction for first degree burglary that qualified as a strike under the three strikes law. The plea agreement provided for a stipulated sentence of 32 months in prison and the dismissal of the remaining counts and enhancement allegations. At sentencing, the trial court imposed the agreed-upon sentence but failed to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations.
On appeal, defendant's sole contention is that the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations in accordance with his plea agreement. The People concede the error. We will modify the judgment by dismissing the remaining counts and enhancement allegations. As modified, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
We do not recite the underlying facts because they are not necessary to the resolution of this appeal. Instead, we briefly summarize the relevant procedural background.
In June 2017, defendant was charged with one count of identity theft, one count of forgery relating to identity theft, and three counts of misdemeanor forgery relating to a check, money order, or traveler's check not exceeding $950 in value. It was also alleged that defendant had served six prior prison terms and had a prior conviction for first degree burglary that qualified as strike under the three strikes law.
Pursuant to a written plea agreement, defendant agreed to plead no contest to identity theft and admit the allegation he had a strike prior. In exchange, the parties agreed that the remaining counts and enhancement allegations would be dismissed and defendant would be sentenced to 32 months in prison. After defendant entered his no contest plea and admission, the trial court took the People's motion to dismiss the remaining counts and sentence enhancement allegations under submission, to be determined at the time of sentencing.
In accordance with the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 32 months in prison, consisting of the low term of 16 months for identify theft, doubled for the strike prior. The court, however, did not dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations in accordance with his plea agreement. We agree.
"A negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to general contract principles. [Citations.] 'The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.] If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs.' " (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767.) " 'The mutual intention to which the courts give effect is determined by objective manifestations of the parties' intent, including the words used in the agreement, as well as extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding circumstances under which the parties negotiated or entered into the contract; the object, nature and subject matter of the contract; and the subsequent conduct of the parties.' " (Ibid.)
" 'When a guilty [or nolo contendere] plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.' " (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80.) The requirements of due process attach to the implementation of a plea bargain. (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860.) "Specific enforcement [of the bargain] is appropriate when it will implement the reasonable expectations of the parties without binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances." (Id. at p. 861.)
Here, the parties expressly agreed that the court would dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations. At sentencing, the trial court failed to do this. Under the circumstances, specific enforcement of the bargain is the appropriate remedy. It is apparent from the record that the trial court's failure to dismiss the remaining counts and enhancement allegations was inadvertent. The trial court accepted defendant's no contest plea and admission and otherwise sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement. Thus, the reasonable expectations of the parties and the trial court will be implemented if we modify the judgment.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect that counts II through V as well as the prior prison term enhancement allegations are dismissed. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the sentencing minute order of October 12, 2017, to reflect the modifications to the judgment.
/s/_________
Robie, J. We concur: /s/_________
Raye, P. J. /s/_________
Hull, J.