Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ramon Oseguera, Jr. was charged with burglary and admitted a prior strike conviction under a negotiated plea agreement calling for a 32-month sentence, the low term doubled under the Three Strikes law. After entering his no contest plea, he requested release to attend a medical appointment, and the trial court granted the request on the condition that he return to jail custody by 5:00 p.m. on May 8, 2024. The court warned that if he failed to return, it could sentence him to up to six years, the upper term doubled.
Oseguera failed to return to custody and did not appear at his May 9, 2024 sentencing hearing. He was eventually brought back to court on a no-bail warrant, and on July 31, 2025, the trial court sentenced him to six years pursuant to what the parties called a Cruz waiver. Defense counsel objected that no aggravating factors had been proven or admitted, and Oseguera made an oral request to withdraw his plea, which the court denied without explanation. The trial court never gave Oseguera an advisement under Penal Code section 1192.5 or allowed him to withdraw his plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed with both parties that the trial court erred. The court explained that a valid Cruz waiver, which permits a trial court to impose a sentence exceeding the bargained-for term when a defendant fails to appear for sentencing, must be obtained at the time of the court's initial acceptance of the plea and must follow an advisement under section 1192.5. Here, the nonappearance sanction was a judicially crafted, post-plea condition imposed by the court after the plea had already been accepted, and it was never a term negotiated by the prosecution and defense. The prosecution had in fact objected to the waiver.
The court found that Oseguera's situation fell squarely within the second category of cases described by the California Supreme Court in People v. Masloski, where during plea proceedings but after the parties have negotiated the basic plea bargain, the court imposes an additional condition providing a sanction for nonappearance. In such cases, the defendant is entitled to withdraw the plea if the court refuses to honor the bargain. The court also held that the trial court's failure to provide the required section 1192.5 advisement and its refusal to permit Oseguera to withdraw his plea constituted a prejudicial violation of the statute and his due process right to the implementation of the plea bargain.
The court further held that no certificate of probable cause was required because Oseguera's challenge was to a post-plea sentencing error, not to the validity of the plea itself. The judgment was reversed and the matter remanded to allow Oseguera the opportunity to withdraw his no contest plea.
Key Takeaways
- A Cruz waiver permitting an increased sentence for failure to appear at sentencing is valid only if obtained at the time of the court's initial acceptance of the plea and after a Penal Code section 1192.5 advisement.
- A nonappearance sanction unilaterally imposed by the trial court after the plea has been accepted, and not negotiated by the parties, is not part of the plea bargain and is unenforceable.
- When a trial court imposes a sentence exceeding the bargained-for term without a valid waiver, it must advise the defendant of the right to withdraw the plea and provide an opportunity to do so.
- A challenge to a post-plea sentencing error that does not attack the validity of the plea itself does not require a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5.
- Both the prosecution and the defense agreed on appeal that the trial court had erred, and the Court of Appeal adopted their shared position in reversing the judgment.
Why It Matters
This opinion reinforces the strict requirements for a valid Cruz waiver under California law and underscores that trial courts cannot unilaterally impose harsher sentences as a condition of post-plea release without complying with section 1192.5. The decision serves as a reminder that plea agreements are contracts between the prosecution and the defense, and judicial modifications after acceptance of the plea are not enforceable unless they comply with statutory safeguards.
The ruling also clarifies that defendants challenging post-plea sentencing errors need not obtain a certificate of probable cause, preserving access to appellate review for claims that do not attack the validity of the plea itself.