Baldivia

People v. Baldivia

Bad Law
239 Cal. Rptr. 3d 704·28 Cal. App. 5th 1071
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 5, 2018H043736; H044842California3,089 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mihara, J.

*1073 Defendant Francisco Javier Baldivia committed a series of criminal offenses when he was 17 years old. Before Proposition 57 took effect in November 2016, defendant entered into a plea agreement in a direct-filed adult criminal proceeding that had been initiated without a juvenile court fitness hearing. Under the plea agreement, he pleaded no *1074 contest to four counts and admitted various enhancement allegations, including Penal Code section 12022.53 1 firearm enhancement allegations. His pleas and admissions were entered in exchange for an agreed prison sentence of 17 years and 4 months and the dismissal of other counts and enhancement allegations. He filed a timely notice of appeal challenging only post-plea proceedings, and he did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.

Proposition 57, which bars direct-filed adult criminal proceedings for juveniles and requires a juvenile fitness hearing before a juvenile case may be transferred to adult criminal court, took effect during the pendency of defendant's appeal. The firearm enhancement statutes were also amended to grant trial courts discretion to strike such enhancements. Defendant contends on appeal that he is…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.