PC 1170.91: Vet’s Stipulated Sentence Not Ineligible

In 2001, U.S. Army veteran Ronnie Keith Harrell was charged in San Bernardino County Superior Court with five felonies, including attempted murder, each with a firearm enhancement and a gang enhancement.  A prior prison term enhancement and a strike prior enhancement were also alleged.

He entered into a plea bargain, pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to robbery, with a firearm enhancement and admitted a prior strike.  He was then sentenced to 28 years in state prison, the term specified in the plea bargain.

In 2021, Mr. Harrell filed a petition for resentencing pursuant to Penal Code § 1170.91.  Section 1170.91, as the reader may know, “allow[s] a convicted veteran who suffers from a specified disorder as a result of his or her military service to petition for resentencing, so that that disorder can be considered as a mitigating factor.”  People v. Stewart (2021) 66 Cal. App. 5th 416, 420.

The trial court judge in San Bernardino County denied the petition, holding that according to People v. King (2020) 52 Cal. App. 5th 783, a person serving a stipulated sentence is categorically ineligible for relief under Penal Code § 1170.91.  The judge rejected Mr. Harrell’s argument that recent amendments to § 1170.91 had abrogated that case law.

Mr. Harrell then appealed to the Fourth Appellate District in Riverside, but the Fourth District affirmed the trial court.

In 2023, Mr. Harrell filed a second petition, arguing that under amendments to Penal Code § 1170.91 effective January 1, 2023, a person serving a stipulated sentence is no longer categorically ineligible for relief.

Mr. Harrell explained that the 2022 amendments to 1170.91 in Senate Bill No. 1209 clearly nullified the earlier restriction that 1170.91 did not apply to stipulated sentences.

The trial court judge in San Bernardino Superior Court denied the petition again because Harrell had stipulated to the sentence.  It stated, “This issue was decided on 2/18/2021 and affirmed on appeal . . .The repeat petition does not provide a legal basis to reconsider this matter.”

Mr. Harrell then appealed to the Fourth Appellate District again, finding that the trial court judge had erred.

The Fourth District explained that the amendments to 1170.91 were ambiguous as to whether a trial court could or could not reduce a stipulated term. 

So, the Fourth District looked to the legislative history of Senate Bill 1209.  In doing so it found that the Senate Bill analysis for the bill stated, “This bill expands [section 1170.91] to include sentences where the plea agreement was for a specified terms of years.” 

The analysis later stated, “This bill would expressly state that if the defendant is eligible for resentencing, the court may [reduce the sentence] regardless of whether the original sentence was imposed after a trial or a plea.” (Sen. Com. On Public Safety, Analysis of Sen. Bill no. 1209 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) as amended May 19, 2022, pp. 6 -7.

In other words, the Fourth District found that the Legislature clearly intended to make persons serving a stipulated sentence eligible for relief under section 1170.91. 

It then cited Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal. 4th 64, 66 for the principal that “when parties enter into a plea agreement does not have the effect of insulating them from changes in the law that the Legislature has intended to apply to them.”  Therefore, the terms of the plea bargain include future changes in the law.

Moreover, the trial court does not have to give the prosecution an opportunity to withdraw from the plea bargain.  In Harris v. Superior Court (2016) 1 Cal. 5th 984, the Supreme Court held that, when a defendant is entitled to have a felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor under section 1170.18 (enacted as Prop 47), the prosecution is not entitled to an opportunity to withdraw from the plea bargain.  Otherwise, the resentencing process that Proposition 47 established would be rendered meaningless if the prosecution could respond to a successful resentencing petition by withdrawing from an underlying plea bargain and reinstating original charges against petitioner.  The goals of the Legislature would be thwarted.

We bring this summary to the reader’s attention because many veterans may now be eligible for resentencing under 1170.91 even if their sentence was via a plea bargain.