Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In August 2024, Daquan Eli Tribble pled no contest to bringing controlled substances into a jail in exchange for dismissal of the remaining charge and mandatory supervision with a suspended four-year upper-term jail sentence. The information alleged Tribble had a strike prior. Within weeks, Tribble violated the terms of his mandatory supervision when police officers discovered a glass smoking device used to smoke methamphetamine during a search. Tribble resisted being placed in handcuffs and kicked the knee of the officer trying to place him into the police vehicle.
Following a combined preliminary examination and probation revocation hearing in December, the court concluded Tribble had violated several terms of his mandatory supervision. The People argued the plea deal was illegal because his strike prior made him ineligible for mandatory supervision and required a state prison sentence. At the February 2025 resentencing, the court offered Tribble either to serve out the four years or spend 365 days in custody with the remainder on mandatory supervision. Tribble said he wanted prison services and called the deal "an illegal plea bargain" of "4 years [in] county jail." The court said it sounded like he was refusing mandatory supervision. Tribble then said he "would like to go to a program that's gonna help" him, but also "need[ed] a future date" to "talk about an appeal." The court ultimately terminated mandatory supervision and sentenced him to the upper term of four years in local custody.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal concluded that Tribble's sentence was unauthorized but that he was estopped from challenging it because he accepted the benefits of the plea agreement. Under Penal Code section 1170(h)(3), a defendant with a strike prior must serve any felony sentence in state prison, not county jail. The parties agreed that, given Tribble's strike prior, he was ineligible for a split jail sentence under section 1170(h)(5)(B). However, defendants who have pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence cannot challenge that sentence on appeal even if the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction, so long as the court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction.
The court reasoned that the trial court had fundamental jurisdiction over Tribble and the subject matter of his criminal case. In imposing an unauthorized sentence, the court exceeded its jurisdiction, but the illegal plea bargain was not null and void. Rather, the sentence was voidable rather than void, and such rulings are subject to forfeiture if not timely asserted. Because Tribble accepted the benefit of the plea agreement—immediate release on mandatory supervision rather than serving four years in state prison—he was estopped from complaining of the sentence to which he agreed.
Regarding the February 7, 2025 minute order, the court accepted the People's concession that the matter should be remanded for the trial court to correct the number of credits to reflect the court's oral pronouncement of 456 days. Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant with a strike prior is ineligible for a split jail sentence under Penal Code section 1170(h)(5)(B) and must serve any felony sentence in state prison under section 1170(h)(3).
- Defendants who plead guilty in return for a specified sentence are estopped from challenging that sentence on appeal as unauthorized, even if the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction, provided the court had fundamental jurisdiction.
- An unauthorized sentence imposed pursuant to a plea agreement is voidable rather than void, and challenges to such rulings are subject to forfeiture if not timely asserted.
- When a defendant accepts the benefits of a plea bargain, such as immediate release on mandatory supervision rather than serving time in state prison, the defendant cannot later challenge the agreed-upon sentence as unauthorized.
- Where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order regarding custody credits, the oral pronouncement controls and the minute order must be corrected.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces the principle that defendants cannot accept the benefits of a plea agreement and then challenge the agreed-upon sentence on appeal as unauthorized. The ruling clarifies that even when a trial court exceeds its jurisdiction by imposing a sentence not authorized by statute, the sentence is voidable rather than void if the court had fundamental jurisdiction over the case. Defendants who receive favorable terms through a negotiated plea, such as release on mandatory supervision instead of prison time, are estopped from later attacking the validity of that bargain.
The case also illustrates the application of Penal Code section 1170(h)(3), which requires defendants with strike priors to serve felony sentences in state prison rather than county jail, and confirms that a prior conviction need not be admitted by the defendant to render him ineligible for a split jail sentence. The ruling additionally demonstrates the proper procedure for correcting discrepancies between oral pronouncements and minute orders regarding custody credits.