In what circumstances will a defendant be able to challenge his sentence for a violation of section 666.5 of the Penal Code?

In defendant's separate letter brief, filed on June 19, 2009, defendant claims he was led to believe the sentence he would receive was 16 months less than the five-year term he received. We disagree for two reasons: (1) The plea agreement, executed by defendant, expressly provides for a sentence of five years in state prison showing defendant was fully aware of the sentence he was agreeing to; and (2) defendant's claim appears to be based on the mistaken belief that the low term for a violation of Penal Code section 666.5, subdivision (a) is 16 months. To the contrary, the low term for the crime is two years in state prison. ( 666.5, subd.(a).) Furthermore, because the length of the sentence was an integral part of the plea agreement, any challenge to the sentence is a challenge to the guilty plea, which requires a certificate of probable cause. (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 84.) Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, so he may not challenge the validity of his plea agreement. (Pen. Code, 1237.5.)

In the June 19, 2009, letter brief, defendant claims his plea was not knowingly and intelligently entered because he was not advised he would have to serve 80 percent of his sentence. The credit-limiting provision of the Strikes law (Pen. Code, 667, subd. (c)(5)) is a collateral consequence of the plea, and a defendant is not entitled to have his plea set aside on appeal on the grounds the trial court (or counsel) failed to advise a defendant of the limitation of conduct credits resulting from the admission of a Strike. (People v. Barella (1999) 20 Cal.4th 261, 272.)