People v. Bueno
Decision Date | 19 February 2019 |
Docket Number | F074946 |
Citation | 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 740,32 Cal.App.5th 342 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Vanessa BUENO, Defendant and Appellant. |
Jennifer Mouzis, Sacramento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Eric Christoffersen, Louis M. Vasquez, Amanda D. Cary and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Appellant, Vanessa Bueno, was driving while intoxicated and lost control of her vehicle resulting in a single vehicle roll-over accident. Bueno’s eight-year-old son was ejected from the vehicle and died. Additionally, her teenage daughter was injured and required medical attention. Bueno pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated (count 1; Pen. Code, § 191.5, subd. (a)1 ); driving under the influence causing injury (count 2; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a) ); driving with a blood alcohol content of .08 or more causing injury (count 3; Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b) ); and two counts of felony child endangerment for endangering her son (count 4; § 273a, subd. (a)) and daughter (count 5; § 273a, subd. (a)). Bueno admitted great bodily injury allegations to counts 2 through 4 (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)); and multiple victim allegations and .15% or higher blood alcohol content allegations as to counts 2 and 3 ( Veh. Code, §§ 23558, 23578 ). Bueno was sentenced to a determinate prison term of 11 years, four months.
Bueno presents four claims on appeal. First, she contends that she never waived her right to be sentenced by the judge who took her plea and the matter should be remanded for resentencing. Second, if the matter is not remanded for resentencing, Bueno contends that counts two and three must be reversed and the respective enhancements stricken, rather than stayed, since they are lesser included offenses of count 1. Bueno also alleges that the great bodily injury enhancement applied to count 4 must be stricken because, despite being stayed under section 654, it increased the duration of her sentence by decreasing her credit earning capacity. Finally, Bueno claims that the trial court incorrectly calculated the fees and assessments relating to the convictions. We find that that Bueno did not waive her rights to have her sentence imposed by the judge that accepted her plea under People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756–757, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220 ( Arbuckle ), and therefore reverse and remand.
On July 1, 2016, a criminal complaint was filed against Bueno alleging the five criminal counts described above. On September 23, 2016, Bueno entered a no contest plea to the charges and filled out and signed a change of plea form memorializing the terms of the plea agreement. Bueno also admitted each enhancement in the criminal complaint. As noted on the change of plea form, Bueno entered into an open plea, and had no agreement with the prosecution regarding the length of her potential sentence. While Bueno initialed many of the provisions on the plea form, she marked certain other provisions with an "X".2 Bueno placed an "X," rather than her initials, in the space provided next to term 31 on the form, which stated "(Arbuckle Waiver) I agree that any judge may impose sentence on me." No discussion of term 31 was raised during the oral pronouncement of her plea.
On December 7, 2016, Bueno was sentenced by a different judge than the one who took her plea. Bueno did not object to the fact that a different judge pronounced her sentence.
I. Arbuckle Waiver
" ‘[A] negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract and is interpreted according to general contract principles.’ " ( K.R. v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 295, 304, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581 ( K.R. ); Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64, 69, 158 Cal.Rptr.3d 290, 302 P.3d 598.) "When enforcing such an agreement, courts will apply general contract principles ‘ "to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties." ’ " ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at p. 304, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) In addition to the express terms of negotiated plea agreements, courts have recognized and incorporated certain implied terms to such agreements. ( Ibid. )
In 1978, the California Supreme Court "established a basic background rule applicable to plea negotiations in criminal cases, holding that ‘[a]s a general principle ... whenever a judge accepts a plea bargain and retains sentencing discretion under the agreement, an implied term of the bargain is that sentence will be imposed by that judge.’ " ( K.R., supra, 3 Cal.5th at p. 298, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581 ( K.R. ), citing Arbuckle , supra , 22 Cal.3d at pp. 756–757, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220.) "Because of the range of dispositions available to a sentencing judge, the propensity in sentencing demonstrated by a particular judge is an inherently significant factor in the defendant’s decision to enter a guilty plea." ( Arbuckle , supra , 22 Cal.3d at p. 757, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220.)
After Arbuckle , ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at p. 306, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) However, in the ensuing years, several appellate courts declined to apply Arbuckle ’s same-judge rule as a categorical presumption, and instead began examining the trial record for evidence of the parties’ actual intent. ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at p. 307, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.)
However, the California Supreme Court has recently rejected the policy shift adopted by some appellate courts. ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at pp. 308-309, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) In K.R. , the minor objected to a different judge than the one who took the plea presiding over the disposition, but the trial court denied the objection, finding the minor did not have a reasonable expectation that the judge who accepted the plea would impose the disposition. ( Id. at p. 303, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) In reversing, the California Supreme Court held that the "clear import of Arbuckle ’s holding is thus contrary to the notion that the implied term of the plea is somehow dependent on a defendant’s pointing to evidence in the record of his or her expectation regarding the identity of the sentencing judge." ( Id. at p. 309, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) Instead, the court ( Id. at p. 312, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.)
Further, in K.R. , the California Supreme Court rejected the People’s argument that a defendant should be able to protect his or her Arbuckle rights by " ‘specifically negotiat[ing for] an Arbuckle term and ensur[ing] it is placed on the record.’ " ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at pp. 312-313, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.) ( Ibid. , emphasis in original.) In adopting its holding, the California Supreme Court noted that to the extent certain appellate court decisions "are inconsistent with this opinion, they are disapproved."3 ( K.R. , supra , 3 Cal.5th at p. 313, fn.10, 219 Cal.Rptr.3d 451, 396 P.3d 581.)
Bueno argues she was denied the ability to be sentenced by the judge who took her plea in violation of her rights under Arbuckle , supra , 22 Cal.3d at pages 756-757, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220. Respondent, although acknowledging that Bueno did not enter into an Arbuckle waiver when her plea was taken, nevertheless argues that she forfeited the claim by not objecting at the time of sentencing. Respondent contends that the Supreme Court in K.R. did not decide the issue of forfeiture in the Arbuckle waiver context because the defendant in K.R. affirmatively objected on Arbuckle grounds at trial.
In support, respondent relies primarily on cases specifically disapproved by the California Supreme Court in K.R. including Adams , supra , 224 Cal.App.3d 1540, 274 Cal.Rptr. 629, Serrato , supra , 201 Cal.App.3d 761, 247 Cal.Rptr. 322, Ruhl , supra , 168 Cal.App.3d 311, 214 Cal.Rptr. 93, and Horn , supra , 213 Cal.App.3d 701, 261 Cal.Rptr. 814. Respondent acknowledges that the California Supreme Court "overruled Horn , Adams , Serrato , and Ruhl to the extent they were inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s conclusion that the ability to enforce the same-judge guarantee was not dependent on a factual showing that she subjectively intended that the judge taking the plea would also pronounce sentence." How...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Pettigrew
...dictum. We are not, of course, bound by dictum, but we nonetheless find James to be persuasive and follow it. (People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, 350, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 ["Courts are to be guided by ‘ "dictum only to the extent it remains analytically persuasive." ’ "].)5 Our Supre......
-
People v. Cardenas
...from the one who took his guilty plea. Cardenas did not object on that basis at sentencing, but he cites People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 ( Bueno ) for the proposition that he did not thereby forfeit the issue. We disagree with Bueno and hold that Cardenas forf......
-
Levanoff v. Dragas
...compelling logic’ " ( Candelore v. Tinder, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th 1138, 1149, 228 Cal.Rptr.3d 336 ; see People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, 350, 243 Cal.Rptr.3d 740 [courts are to be guided by dictum if it remains " ‘ "analytically persuasive" ’ "]). The Alvarado court's comments......
-
Levanoff v. Dragas
... ... to the court's decision and therefore constituted dicta ... ( People v. Vang (2011) 52 Cal.4th 1038, 1047, fn. 3 ... [dictum (plural, dicta) is a judicial comment that is ... unnecessary to the decision at ... ( Candelore v. Tinder, Inc. (2018) 19 Cal.App.5th ... 1138, 1149; see People v. Bueno (2019) 32 ... Cal.App.5th 342, 350 [courts are to be guided by dictum if it ... remains “‘“analytically ... ...
-
Table of cases
...People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 30-31, §10:35.3 People v. Buell (2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 682, §10:94.5 People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, §3:58.5 People v. Bufford (2007) 146 Cal. App. 4th 966, 971, §14:31 People v. Bui (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 675, §9:02.1 People v. Buller (1......
-
Arraignment and pretrial matters
...the bargain is that the sentence will be imposed by that judge. K.R. v. Superior Court (2017) 3 Cal.5th 295. In People v. Bueno (2019) 32 Cal.App.5th 342, the court held that a defendant did not forfeit the right to be sentenced by the judge who took her plea to gross vehicular manslaughter......