4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2025/12/10 - Dec 10, 2025

argument

4DCA Division 1 Oral Argument - 2025/12/10

California Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division One 4h 22m 1 speaker 7 chapters transcribed 7 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What procedural steps are taken at the beginning of the oral argument?

Martha 12:30

Good morning, this is Martha from the clerk's office. I will be doing a quick check in for those of you appearing remotely. If I can ask you to please uh mute your microphone and turn on your video.

Martha 12:49

Okay, so for this morning I have uh attorney Laura Bavikan. Please state your presence.

Laura Bavikin 12:55

Uh yeah, Laura Babbican for Appellant Gregory Strunk.

Martha 12:59

Okay, uh attorney Vabakin, I'm gonna ask you to please keep your microphone and your video off until your case is called. If you experience any technical difficulties during the oral argument session, immediately exit the video conference and use the phone number and the access code that we emailed you this morning. Okay, so court will be with you shortly if you can just turn off your microphone and your video. Thank you. Thank you.

Bill Montgomery 15:24

Good morning, welcome to the Court of Appeal. Is to my right. When you come to argue, please make sure you adjust the podium using the switch here on the right hand side. So the microphone is pointing to your chin. If you don't, the justices on the bench will not be able to hear you and they will stop you make mid-argument to have you properly adjusted. You could use the restroom, you have to come back through security screening and the court's in session. Please keep talking noise down to a minute. Any questions for me before we get started? Cool, thank you.

Bill Montgomery 20:54

All right. Court of appeal of the state of California, Fourth Appellic District Division One is now in session with the Honorable Ruth McCall presiding. Please be seated.

Unknown 21:05

Well, good morning. Uh, welcome to the Court of Appeal. With me on this first panel are Justice O'Rourke to my right, Justice Kelly to my left. We do have four cases uh on the calendar. Unfortunately we have panel changes after each case. But on each case keep in mind we're very familiar with your briefs and uh so just highlight those issues you think are most important. We're going to start this morning with people versus strunk. I understand. Uh appellance counsel is appearing remotely, is that correct?

Laura Bavikin 21:39

Yes, Your Honors.

Unknown 21:40

Could you state your appearance and let us know if you wish to reserve time to respond?

Laura Bavikin 21:45

Laura Bavikin, appellate counsel for uh uh Gregory Strunk, and I would like to reserve three minutes.

Unknown 21:51

All

Laura Bavikin 21:51

right, you

Unknown 21:51

may proceed.

Laura Bavikin 21:53

Thank you. Uh I just wanted to address one quick housekeeping issue before I get into it. Um I didn't notice this unfortunately until last night as I was reviewing, but on page twelve of the reply brief. I referenced penal code twelve oh twenty two point one as a weapon enhancement. Um it is a crime uh on bail enhancement and I apologize for that error, not sure. Where that came from. Okay. Um so the focus of the case. As long as you're not

Unknown 22:21

using AI and giving us false citations, we won't get too upset. I'm sorry? As long as you're not using artificial intelligence, we're fine. Okay.

Laura Bavikin 22:31

No, I think it may have been lack of coffee. I don't know. Got it. Okay. Um Okay, uh so the focus of my argument this morning will be addressing respondents' claim that the court had no sentencing discretion when correcting the sentence. For the C D C R letter. Respondent's argument um is based on a few incorrect assumptions. One that this was an inadvertent sentencing error. And then second, that it was a stipulated plea agreement with the court. A respondent's characterization of the plea as a stipulated plea deal incorrectly suggests that the trial court lacked discretion to reconsider sentencing choices. Given that judicial plea bargaining is not legally authorized and the parties at least at the sentencing refer to the court sentence at an as an indicated sentence, it is appellant's position to

Laura Bavikin 23:22

That the court provided an indicated sentence prior to appellance plea and the court was therefore not bound by it. Although I touched on this uh in briefing, I did want to emphasize that the distinction between a plea deal and an indicated s indicated sentence is legally significant because once an indicated sentence is uh formally entered into the court minutes, while the court lacks juris jurisdiction to increase the sentence, it retains authority to reduce the sentence uh it if reconsidered before execution.