Filed 3/26/ 21 P. v. Chagolla CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or or dered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. JOHNNY JESSE CHAGOLLA, Defendant and Appellant. H047707 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. C1905080)

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, a ppellant Johnny Jesse Chagolla pleaded no contest to a count of reckless driving while evading a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.1, 2800.2, subd . (a) ; count 1 ) and misdemeanor hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a) ; count 2 ) . He also admitted an allegation that he had served a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). 1 Chagolla entered his plea with the understanding that he faced a maximum term of three years in prison for counts 1 and 2

. At the sentencing hearing, t he trial court suspended imposition of sentence and ordered Chagolla to complete three years of formal probation
and to serve six months in county jail

. On appeal, Chagolla argues that Senate Bill No. 136 (2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess.) , which limits prior prison term enhancements to sexually violent offenses, retroactively applies to his case and requires that we strike his prior prison term enhancement and
reduce his potential maximum prison term to two years. Chagolla also filed a supplemental brief arguing that he is entitled to relief under Assembly Bill No. 1950

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.2

(2019

- 2020 Reg. Sess.) , which limits the term of felony p robation to two years for certain
offenses. We strike Chagolla’s prior prison term enhancement but conclude that he is not entitled to any other relief under Senate Bill No

. 136 because his plea agreement did not incorporate a sentence for his prior prison term enhancement

. W e also conclude that Chagolla may be entitled to relief under Assembly Bill No. 1950. Therefore, we reverse the order of probation and remand the mat t e r back to the trial court.
I. B ACKGROUND 2
A. The Complaint On March 18, 2019, Chagolla was charged by complaint with a count of
reckless driving while evading a pursuing police officer (Veh. Code, §§ 2800.1, 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), misdemeanor hit and run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a) ; count 2), and misdemeanor driving when a license is suspended or revoked (Veh. Code, § 1460 1 .1, subd. (a); count 3). The complaint also alleged that Chagolla had serve d a prior prison term (§ 667.5 , subd. (b) ) for committing second degree burglary (§ 460, subd. (b))

. B. The Plea On September 30, 2019, Chagolla signed and initialed an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form . Chagolla agreed to plead no contest to counts 1 and 2 with the understanding that he would face a maximum prison term of three years, be placed on three years of formal probation, and serve six months in county jail. That same day, Chagolla pleaded no contest to counts 1 and 2 and admitted that he had served a prior prison term under section 667.5 , subdivision (b)

. C. Sentencing On October 24, 2019, the trial court held a sentencing hearing. Defense counsel requested that the trial court strike Chagolla’s prior prison term enhancement due to a

2 The facts of Chagolla’s offenses are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal.3

change in the law (Senate Bill No. 136) , stating: “One thing I wanted to address

— there had been a prison prior that was admitted. I was going to request at this point now that [the enhancement] be stricken and, therefore, not applicable to a potential max time given that the law doing away with prison priors has been passed by both houses of the [L] egislature and signed by the governor.” The trial court asked defense counsel when
the new law would take effect, and defense counsel answered that he beli eved the law
would be effective on January 1, 2020. The trial court declined to strike the prior prison
term enhancemen t, stating : “I’ll just leave [the enhancement] there because likely nothing will happen. I can only act on the law as it exists now.” Subsequently, the trial court sentenced Chagolla pursuant to the negotiated plea agreement

. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed Chagolla on three
years of formal probation , and imposed concurrent term s of six months in county jail for
counts 1 and 2

. T he trial court then dismissed count 3. Chagolla filed a timely notice of appeal and requested a certificate of probable cause, which the trial court granted.
II. D ISCUSSION Chagolla argues that we must strike his prior prison term enhancement and reduce his potential maximum prison term from three years to two years under Senate Bill
No. 136

. He a lso argues that he is entitled to retroactive relief under Assembly Bill
No. 1950, and we must reduce his probationary term from three years to two years.
A. Senate Bill No

. 136 On October 8, 2019, the Governor signed Senate Bill No. 136 (S en. B ill 136) into law, effective January 1, 2020, amending section 667.5, subdivision (b). (Stats. 2019,
ch. 590, § 1.) Under the newly

- amended version of section 667.5, subdivision (b), a

one

- year sentencing enhancement will apply only if a defendant served a prior prison term “for a sexually violent offense as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 6600 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.”4

Chagolla and the People, and we as well, agree that the amended version of section 667.5, subdivision (b) applies retroactiv ely to cases in which the judgment is not yet final. ( People v

. Winn (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 859, 872; People v

. Petri (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 82, 94.) Chagolla’s prior prison term for committing a second degree burglary does not qualify for an enhancement u nder the amended version of
section 667.5, subdivision (b). His judgment is also not yet final. Therefore, we agree with Chagolla that we must strike his prior prison term enhancement. The People do not object and concede that the enhancement must be st ricken. Chagolla, however, also argues that his plea agreement must be modified to reflect
that he faces a maximum term of two years in prison should he violate his probation. The People disagree, arguing that the one

- year sentence for Chagolla’s prior p rison term enhancement was not a part of the written plea agreement. We believe the People have the better argument. “A negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to general contract principles.” ( People v

. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767.) “ ‘The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. (Civ. Code, § 1636.) If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. (Civ. Code, § 1638.) ’ ” If “the writing is plain and un ambiguous,

. . . it cannot be altered by parol evidence.” ( People v

. Toscano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 340, 345 ( Toscano ).) On the other hand, “ ‘ “ [i]f the terms of a promise are in any respect ambiguous or uncertain, it m ust be interpreted in the sense in which the promisor believed, at the time of making it, that the promise understood it.” ’ ” ( Shelton , supra , at p. 767

. ) Mutual intent is determined by “ ‘objective manifestations of the parties’ intent, including the

w ords 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

. )5

In this case, the written plea agreement was unambiguous. T he written plea form, which was filed and signed by the parties and the trial court on September 30, 2019,

state d in part : “I understand I will plead guilty or not contest to these char g e(s) and admit these allegation(s).” Chagolla filled out the table underneath this line by handwriting in count 1, a felony violation of Veh icle Code sections 2800.1, 2800.2, subd ivision (a) , and count 2, a misdemeanor violation of Veh icle Code section 20002, subd ivision (a) . He
then initialed next to the line that state d , “I understand the maximum sentence for the charges I am pleading guilty or no contest to is a state prison term of 3 yea rs and 0 months.” As indicated on the plea form, Chagolla agreed to plead no contest to two charges, count 1 and count 2. The written plea agreement did not mention the prior prison term enhancement

. Thus , the written plea agreement cannot be interprete d as incorporating a one

- year sentence for the prior prison term enhancement as a component
of the maximum three

- year term. Likewise, the parties and the trial court made no mention of the three

- year maximum term during the change of plea hearing . At the hearing, the trial court accepted Chagolla’s pleas of no contest to counts 1 and 2. Subsequently, the trial court asked Chagolla if he was also admitting the prior prison term enhancement, and Chagolla
answered yes. T here was no statement on the record that would indicate that the
three

- year maximum term expressed in the written plea agreement included a one

- year term for Chagolla’s prior prison term enhancement. Chagolla argues that the subsequent conduct of t he parties reflect ed an understanding that the maximum three

- year term included a s entence for his prior prison
term enhancement . On October 24, 2019, about a month after Chagolla signed the plea agreement and entered his no contest pleas , the trial court held a sentencing hearing. At the hearing , defense counsel argued that Chagolla’s prison prior would “not [be] applicable to a potential max time” under S en. B ill 136. The prosecutor did not make any arguments or assert that the prison prior was no t used to calculate Chagolla’s potential6

maximum prison exposure. However, because we have concluded that the written plea agreement was not ambiguous, we cannot resort to extrinsic evidence , including statements made by the parties a month after the plea agreement was signed, to modify the terms of that agreement. ( See Toscano , supra , 124 Cal.App.4th at p. 345.) Therefore, we agree with the People that Chagolla is not entitled to a modification of his plea agreement under S en. B ill 136. 3
B. Assembly Bill No

. 1950 In a supplemental brief, Chagolla argues that Assembly Bill No. 1950 (A ssem. B ill 1950), which recently amended section 1203.1, subdivision (a), retroactively applies to his case and requires that we reduce the length of his probation from three years to two
years. At the time Chagolla was placed on probation , former section 1203.1,
subdivis ion (a) provided that the trial court may impose probation for a period “not exceeding the maximum possible term of the sentence.” Former s ection 1203.1, subdivision (a) further provide d that if “the maximum possible term of a sentence is five years or le ss, then the period of suspension of imposition or execution of sentence may, in the discretion of the court, continue for not over five years.” On September 30, 2020, the Governor signed Assem. Bill 1950 into law, effective January 1, 2021. (Stats. 20 20, ch. 328, § 2.) Assem. Bill 1950 amend ed section 1203.1.
Under the amended version of section 1203.1, th e maximum term of probation that a trial court may impose is now two years , except in certain circumstances that are not present

3 Initially, we requested that the parties provide supplemental briefs addressing whether People v

. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685 impacts the appropriate remedy that should be ordered in this case if we assume that Chagolla’s plea agreement incorporated a
one

- year term for his prior prison term enhancement. Since we conclude that the plea agreement is unambiguous and does not include a term for the prior prison term enhancem ent, we do not need to address the applicability of Stamps

.7

in this case. 4 The amended version of section 1203.1 is silent on the issue of retroactivity , but t hree recently published cases have held that the amendment is
retroactive to all nonfinal cases , and we find them persuasive ( People v. Sims (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 943 ; Pe ople v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874 ; People v

. Burton (2020)
58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1 )

. As a result, we conclude that Assem. Bill 1950 should be applied retroactively to modify Chagolla’s term of probation and remand the matter to the

tr ial court for that purpose.
III. D ISPOSITION The order of probation is reversed, and the matter is remanded to the trial court
with directions to modify Chagolla’s term of probation in accord with Assembly Bill
No. 1950. The trial court is also directed to strike Chagolla’s prior prison term
enhance ment under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).

4 The two

- year limit on probation does not apply to offenses that are listed in section 667.5, subdivision (c), offenses that include specific probation lengths within its provisions, and felony c onvictions for violating sections 487, subdivision (b)(3), 503, or 532a if the total value of the property taken exceeds $25,000. (§ 1203.1, subd. (m).)_______________________________ Greenwood, P.J.

WE CONCUR:

____________________________________ Elia , J.

__________________________________________________ Bamattre

- Manoukian , J.

People v. Chagolla No. H047707