People v. Tyler CA4/1

DISCUSSION

A. Senate Bill 567 Senate Bill 567 became effective January 1, 2022. It placed limitations on the trial court’s discretion to select an upper term sentence by adding section 1170, subdivision (b)(2). The parties agree the legislation applies retroactively to Tyler’s case. (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740.) The People contend Senate Bill 567 does not aid Tyler. His sentence was not a result of the trial court’s discretion in selecting the upper term. Instead, the sentence was the product of a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence, which the court could either accept or reject, but not modify. (People v. Blount (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 992, 997; People v. King (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 783, 789-791.) The limitations on discretion in Senate Bill 567 are not directed to the trial court’s discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement with a stipulated sentence, thus the modifications to sentencing discretion are not relevant to Tyler’s agreed sentence. B. Remaining contentions Tyler first contends the $154 criminal justice administration fee the court imposed must be vacated due to a legislative change made since the

2 The facts of the offense are not relevant to the…