1

Filed 7/19/24 P. v. Broadway 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

DONNIE RAY BROADWAY,

Defendant and Appellant.

C098290

(Super. Ct. Nos. 22CF05054, 

22CF04132)

In a global plea agreement resolving two criminal cases, defendant Donnie Ray 

Broadway pleaded no contest to three drug offenses in exchange for dismissal of all other

charges. On appeal, he argues that he was denied the benefit of his plea bargain after the 

trial court failed to dismiss allegations of a prior strike. We conclude that the trial court’s 

judgment failed to reflect the parties’ bargain. We therefore modify the judgment to 

conform to the parties’ agreement.

BACKGROUND

In June 2022, law enforcement officers executed a search warrant at Broadway’s

home. The search of his bedroom uncovered various amounts of methamphetamine, 
2

heroin, cocaine, cocaine and fentanyl mixed, and hydrocodone-acetaminophen pills as 

well as drug paraphernalia, packaging, scales, and pay-owe sheets. Officers also found 

methamphetamine and a scale under the couch cushions in the living room. 

In August 2022, the People charged Broadway in Butte County case

No. 22CF04132 with four drug-related charges: count 1 for maintaining a place for 

selling or using a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11366); count 2 for

possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378); count 3 for possession and purchase 

of cocaine and fentanyl for sale (§ 11351); and count 4 for possession and purchase of 

heroin for sale (§ 11351).1 For each count, the complaint alleged that he had suffered a 

prior strike for a 1994 first degree burglary conviction and was therefore subject to 

sentencing under California’s Three Strikes law. (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 

1170.12.) Broadway was released on bail. 

In October 2022, law enforcement officers searched a hotel room that Broadway 

had rented. They discovered methamphetamine, “fake” heroin, acetaminophen and 

hydrocodone bitartrate pills, oxycodone hydrochloride pills, Xanax bars of suspected 

fentanyl/mannitol, and a used glass smoking device. 

Later that month, the People filed a second criminal action against Broadway, 

docketed as Butte County case No. 22CF05054. The complaint alleged two new drugrelated charges: count 1 for possession of methamphetamine for sale (§ 11378) and 

count 2 for possession and purchase of oxycodone for sale (§ 11351). For each count, the 

People alleged that, at the time of the offenses, Broadway was on bail in case 

No. 22CF04132 (Pen. Code, § 12022.1) and that he had suffered a prior strike for a 1994 

first degree burglary conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code.
3

The parties resolved both cases by plea. Under the terms of the global plea 

agreement, Broadway pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 in case No. 22CF04132. In 

case No. 22CF05054, he pleaded no contest to count 2 and admitted the on-bail 

enhancement. In exchange, the agreement provided that “[a]ll other charges are

dismissed.” 

The plea arrangement left sentencing to the trial court’s discretion. Broadway 

agreed that the court could sentence him to the lower, middle, or upper term and that the 

court could find aggravating factors based on the probable cause declaration, police 

reports, and the probation report. He also agreed to a waiver under People v. Harvey

(1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, which allowed the sentencing judge to consider his prior criminal 

history, including “any unfiled, dismissed or stricken charges or allegations or cases[,] 

when granting probation, ordering restitution or imposing sentence.” 

At a December 2022 hearing, the trial court accepted Broadway’s plea. It also 

found Broadway in violation of probation in a misdemeanor matter (case 

No. 20CM04390) and revoked probation in that case. 

At sentencing in March 2023, the trial court designated count 2 in case 

No. 22CF05054 as the principal term and sentenced Broadway to the upper term of four 

years in state prison. The court imposed consecutive terms of eight months (one-third the 

midterm) for each of counts 1 and 2 in case No. 22CF04132. It declined to strike the onbail enhancement in case No. 22CF05054 and added two years to Broadway’s sentence

for that enhancement. The court also imposed a concurrent six-month term for the 

misdemeanor in case No. 20CM04390. Broadway’s aggregate sentence totaled seven 

years four months in prison. 

DISCUSSION

On appeal, Broadway asks this court to modify the judgment to dismiss the strike 

allegations in both cases brought against him. In his view, the trial court failed to comply 

with the plea agreement’s provision to dismiss “[a]ll other charges” when the court 
4

dismissed counts 3 and 4 in case No. 22CF04132 and count 1 in case No. 22CF05054 but 

not the strike allegations. The People argue that modification is not required under the 

terms of the plea agreement and, in any event, is unnecessary because the strike 

allegations were dismissed by operation of law after the prosecution did not attempt to 

prove, and Broadway did not admit, the allegations. 

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that modification of the judgment is 

warranted. It is well established that “when a plea rests in any significant degree on a 

promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement 

or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” (Santobello v. New York (1971) 

404 U.S. 257, 262.) In this case, there is no dispute between the parties that the plea 

agreement required dismissal of the substantive counts to which Broadway did not 

plead—namely, counts 3 and 4 in case No. 22CF04132 and count 1 in case 

No. 22CF05054. Indeed, both parties’ briefs before this court assume that the trial court 

has already dismissed those counts. 

While it is true that the court minutes reflect the dismissal of those counts, the 

court’s oral judgment does not. But “ ‘[r]endition of judgment is an oral 

pronouncement.’ ” (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) And “[w]here there is a 

discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the 

abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 

147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385.) Here, the trial court orally sentenced Broadway on the 

counts and allegation to which he expressly pleaded, but it did not address the remaining 

charges at either the change-of-plea or sentencing hearings. Accordingly, to conform to

the plea agreement and the parties’ understandings, the judgment must be modified to 

dismiss the substantive counts to which Broadway did not plead. (People v. Macheno 

(1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 861 [“Specific enforcement [of a plea 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”].)
5

That leaves the question of whether the plea agreement also entitles Broadway to 

dismissal of the strike allegations. Our state high court has explained that a negotiated 

plea agreement is a form of contract that is interpreted according to general contract 

principles. (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767.) When interpreting a plea 

agreement on appeal, we must give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. (Ibid.) 

Where the contract language is clear and explicit, it governs. (Ibid.) But where 

contractual terms are ambiguous or uncertain, we must interpret the language “ ‘ “in the 

sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promisee 

understood it.” ’ ” (Ibid.) “ ‘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.)

While we agree with the People that a strike allegation is not a “charge” of a 

crime, the parties’ conduct in this case establishes that the parties intended for the People 

to seek dismissal of both the substantive counts and the strike allegations when they 

agreed that “[a]ll other charges” would be dismissed. As the People acknowledge, the 

prosecution never attempted to prove, and Broadway never admitted, the strike 

allegations. In addition—and without objection from either party—the trial court did not 

sentence Broadway under the Three Strikes law. These facts demonstrate that the parties 

intended for all counts and allegations other than those to which Broadway expressly 

pleaded to be dismissed.

The People argue that the terms of the plea agreement did not call for dismissal of 

the strike allegations, but they represent on appeal that the allegations were dismissed by 

operation of law when they were neither proven nor admitted; that the allegations cannot 

be used against Broadway in the future; and indeed, that they “no longer exist.” The 
6

modification we order is thus consistent with both parties’ expectations regarding the 

status of the strike allegations in question.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to dismiss counts 3 and 4 and the prior strike conviction 

allegations in Butte County case No. 22CF04132 and count 1 and the prior strike 

conviction allegations in Butte County case No. 22CF05054. The clerk of the superior 

court is directed to correct the respective sentencing minute orders accordingly. As so 

modified, the judgment is affirmed.

 /s/

Feinberg, J.

We concur:

 /s/

Mauro, Acting P. J.

 /s/

Mesiwala, J.