Court Opinion

ID: 9914941
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-03 19:02:52.438698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:15:27.178130
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/3/24 P. v. Turner CA1/2
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or
ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
 v.                                                                     A168230
 ANTOINE TURNER,
                                                                        (Lake County Super. Ct.
           Defendant and Appellant.                                      No. CR963186)

                                       MEMORANDUM OPINION1
         Antoine Turner pleaded no contest on two felony counts and admitted a
prior strike allegation, in exchange for dismissal of other counts and a
sentence of “not more than” four years in prison. The trial court
subsequently refused to consider Turner’s motion to dismiss his prior strike
conviction pursuant to People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th
497 because the motion was not explicitly provided for in his plea agreement.
Turner now argues, and the People concede, that the court should have at
least considered the motion. We agree.

         1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to California

Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

                                                               1
        Antoine Turner was charged by information with 11 offenses, including
possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and
unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).
The information further alleged that Turner had suffered a prior strike
conviction (id. §§ 667, subds. (b)–(j), 1170.12).
        Turner pleaded no contest to these two counts and admitted the prior
strike allegation. In return, the People dismissed the remaining charges and
allegations, and would recommend to the court a sentence of “not more than”
four years in prison. The plea agreement did not contain a minimum prison
term.
        At the sentencing hearing, the parties and the trial court confirmed
that the four-year prison term was only a “lid,” so Turner could “argue for
less.” Turner then requested that the court dismiss the prior strike
conviction pursuant to Romero. The court asked: “But was a part of a plea
agreement that you can make a Romero motion?” Counsel clarified that the
agreement did not “expressly” include a Romero motion. The prosecutor
stated: “I doubt we would specifically agree or disagree with it.” The court
responded: “If the agreement says you can make a Romero motion, then of
course you can. Otherwise, you can’t.” The trial court declined to consider
the motion and sentenced Turner to four years in prison.
        “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, citing People v. Toscano (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 340, 344.) Plea
agreements are thus “interpreted according to the general rule ‘that
ambiguities are construed in favor of the defendant.’ ” (Toscano, at p. 345.)
The relevant questions are: “What was the bargain, and did it preclude a
striking under Romero?” (People v. Smith (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 46, 51.)

                                         2
      The “bargain” here was that Turner pleaded no contest to some counts
in exchange for dismissal of other counts and a sentence of “not more than”
four years in prison. (People v. Smith, supra, 59 Cal.App.4th at p. 51.)
Nothing about the bargain barred Turner from making a Romero motion: the
agreement did not contain a minimum prison term (such that the court would
have been disallowed from granting the motion) or otherwise prohibit such a
motion. Nor did Turner waive his right to pursue the motion. (See People v.
Vargas (1993) 13 Cal.App.4th 1653, 1662 [“ ‘[T]he valid waiver of a right
presupposes an actual and demonstrable knowledge of the very right being
waived’ ”].) The trial court should have considered Turner’s Romero motion
on its merits.
                               DISPOSITION
      The judgment is conditionally reversed, and the cause is remanded to
the trial court with directions to hear and determine Turner’s Romero motion
to dismiss his prior strike conviction. If the court grants the motion, Turner
shall be resentenced. If the court denies the motion, the judgment shall be
reinstated and deemed final. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

                                       3
                                         _________________________
                                         Markman, J.*

We concur:

_________________________
Stewart, P.J.

_________________________
Richman, J.

People v. Turner (A168230)

     * Judge of the Alameda Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice
pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                     4