Can a defendant challenge a negotiated sentence imposed as part of a plea bargain?

" '[A] challenge to a negotiated sentence imposed as part of a plea bargain is properly viewed as a challenge to the validity of the plea itself' and thus requires a certificate of probable cause." (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 766; see People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 76, 78-79; 1237.5.) Defendant's claim requires a certificate of probable cause. He did not obtain one. Thus, his contention challenging a sentence that was part of the plea agreement is not cognizable on appeal.

Page 4

Even if the issue were cognizable on appeal, defendant would be estopped from challenging a sentence to which he agreed. "The rule that defendants may challenge an unauthorized sentence on appeal even if they failed to object below is itself subject to an exception: Where the defendants have pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error even though the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, so long as the trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction. The rationale behind this policy is that defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to trifle with the courts by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process. [Citations.] . . . 'When a defendant maintains that the trial court's sentence violates rules which would have required the imposition of a more lenient sentence, yet the defendant avoided a potentially harsher sentence by entering into the plea bargain, it may be implied that the defendant waived any rights under such rules by choosing to accept the plea bargain.' " (People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.)