Imprecise drafting by the Legislature keeps making work for the Supreme Court. In People v. Mitchell, the court on Monday interpreted the retroactive effect of SB 567, which precludes imposition of the highest of three possible sentencing terms unless the defendant has stipulated to, or a trier of fact has found, aggravating circumstances. But, unlike it did in another case, the court didn’t call out the Legislature.
Resolving a question the Legislature didn’t address, the court’s unanimous opinion by Justice Corrigan rejected the Attorney General’s argument that, although SB 567 applies retroactively in general, it can’t negate a defendant’s pre-SB 567 agreement to plead to a high sentence out of step with the new law. Post SB 567, however, the court concluded, a defendant’s agreement to an upper term is enforceable so long as the defendant has validly waived the law’s requirements.
But the defendant doesn’t necessarily now get a reduced sentence as part of her pre-SB 567 plea bargain. Rather, the court said that she can waive the new law and accept the original plea deal, seek an agreement with the prosecution to plead to a lesser sentence, or, without an agreement, return to “a pre-plea posture” that might result in a trial.
The court reversed in part a First District, Division Five, Court of Appeal, published opinion. It also disapproved the Fifth District’s decision in People v. Sallee (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 330, which is a grant-and-hold for Mitchell (see here).
Related:
Supreme Court allows defendant to take advantage of new sentence enhancement law, but with a risk
Three-justice concurring statement urges legislative change to sentencing law
