Filed 5/30/17 P. v. Palmathier CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yolo)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ROBERT HAMILTON PALMATIER,

Defendant and Appellant.


C082981

(Super. Ct. No. CRF161171)


Defendant Robert Hamilton Palmatier pleaded no contest to unlawful use of another person’s personal identifying information (Pen. Code, § 530.5, subd. (a)) and admitted he had a prior serious felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§ 667, subds. (c) & (e)(1)) (strike prior). On appeal, he contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to dismiss his strike prior. We conclude the trial court had no authority to dismiss the strike prior. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.
BACKGROUND
On May 24, 2016, defendant was charged by information with one count of unlawful use of another person’s personal identifying information (§ 530.5, subd. (a)), two counts of forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)), and two counts of second degree burglary (§ 459). It was also alleged defendant had a strike prior based on his 1998 conviction for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (b)) and had served two prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)).
On May 26, 2016, defendant entered into a written plea agreement whereby he agreed to plead no contest to unlawful use of another person’s personal identifying information, admit the strike prior, and admit to violating the terms of his probation in another case. In exchange for his plea and admissions, the agreement provided all remaining counts and enhancements would be dismissed, two other misdemeanor cases would be dismissed, and defendant stipulated to serve a sentence of four years in prison.
During the plea hearing, the parties confirmed the terms of the plea agreement on the record. Defendant affirmed he understood the terms of the agreement, including that he would serve a four-year sentence. He indicated he had read and understood the plea form. Defendant also indicated he had signed and initialed the plea form and did not have any questions about the form, the terms of the agreement, or anything else pertaining to his cases. Thereafter, defendant pleaded no contest and made admissions consistent with the parties’ agreement, which were accepted by the trial court. Upon the prosecutor’s motion, the remaining counts and enhancements as well as the two misdemeanor cases were dismissed.
On July 21, 2016, defendant filed a request to withdraw his no contest plea and dismiss his strike prior pursuant to section 1385 and People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 (Romero). The People opposed the motion.
At the outset of the sentencing hearing, the trial court denied defendant’s motion, finding, “[no] good cause or it to be in the furtherance of justice” to dismiss the strike prior. The trial court also found good cause did not exist to withdraw the no contest plea. Prior to imposing sentence, the trial court stated defendant “stipulated to a two-year prison term doubled by the strike for a total of four years,” and found there was “adequate reason to accept [the] plea agreement.” Thereafter, the court sentenced defendant to serve an aggregate term of four years in prison.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion by denying his request to dismiss his strike prior. According to defendant, he is not estopped from complaining he is entitled to a remand under Romero because the record does not establish the plea agreement provided for a stipulated sentence. We disagree.
Where a specific sentence is a negotiated part of a plea bargain and the trial court accepts the terms of the agreement, the court is without authority to alter it unless the parties agree. (People v. Cunningham (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1047-1048.) In this case, the trial court had no authority to dismiss the strike prior. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record clearly reflects the plea agreement called for a stipulated sentence of four years. The plea agreement expressly states defendant “will be sentenced to the middle base term of 2-years [on count one], doubled for the prior strike[,] for a stipulated sentence of 4-years in state prison.” At the plea hearing, defense counsel specifically stated the parties had agreed to a “stipulated sentence” of four years. Defendant subsequently acknowledged he understood he would serve a four-year sentence under the terms of the parties’ agreement. Having accepted the terms of the plea agreement, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to alter the bargain in order to reduce the term. The parties did not agree to alter the terms of the plea agreement accepted by the trial court. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s request to dismiss his strike prior. (See Cunningham, at pp. 1047-1048 [expressly agreed upon term of 32 months barred remand for court to exercise its discretion to dismiss strike prior]; People v. Cepeda (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1235, 1239-1240 [appellant was estopped from complaining he was entitled to a Romero remand for resentencing since he had entered a plea bargain with a specified sentence], overruled on another ground as stated in People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1097-1098.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.


We concur:


/s/
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.



/s/
BUTZ, J.