Background
Stefan Misu was charged by information with kidnapping, assault with intent to commit rape, two counts of threats to commit a crime resulting in death or great bodily injury, and misdemeanor battery on a person with whom he had a dating relationship, following a July 22, 2023 incident involving E.S., an 18-year-old woman with whom he was romantically involved. According to the preliminary hearing evidence, which the court construed in the light most favorable to the judgment, E.S. initially told police that Misu pulled her into a car at a 7-Eleven in Anaheim, drove her to San Jose, and threatened to rape her, though she later testified at the preliminary hearing that her kidnapping claim was a lie and that she had gone voluntarily.
Misu, who is Romani, filed a motion under the Racial Justice Act alleging that a San Jose police sergeant exhibited implicit and explicit bias against Romanian individuals during the investigation. After a four-day evidentiary hearing, the trial court granted the motion, finding that the sergeant had exhibited conscious and unconscious bias, particularly as to the honesty of Romani individuals, though it found Misu had not demonstrated that she harbored racial animus against him or the Roma people. As a remedy, the court struck the aggravators as to each count, making Misu ineligible for an upper-term sentence, but declined to dismiss the charges or reduce them to misdemeanors.
Following the RJA ruling, the parties resolved the case by written plea agreement: Misu pleaded no contest to counts 3 and 4, both violations of Penal Code section 422, subdivision (a), and count 5, a misdemeanor violation of section 243, subdivision (e)(1), agreeing to a two-year custodial term and waiving one year of custody credits; the prosecution dismissed the remaining charges and allegations. The trial court sentenced Misu on January 21, 2025, imposing a two-year middle term on count 2, a two-year term on count 3 to be served concurrently with count 2, and 150 days on count 3, which it deemed served. The court awarded 367 days of actual credit and 366 days of credit under section 4019, for total credits of 733 days, pronounced the sentence served, ordered Misu released, ordered him to report to parole upon his release from custody, and issued a 10-year no-contact order preventing Misu from having any contact with E.S. The court dismissed counts 1 and 2. Misu timely appealed, and his request for a certificate of probable cause was denied by the trial court.
The Court’s Holding
Appointed counsel for Misu filed a brief asking the court to review the record to determine whether there were any arguable issues, citing People v. Wende. Misu was advised of his right to file a supplemental brief but did not respond. The court undertook an examination of the entire record under Wende and People v. Kelly.
Having examined the entire record, the court found no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to Misu. It therefore affirmed the judgment in full.
The disposition states simply: the judgment is affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- A defendant who pleads no contest after obtaining a favorable Racial Justice Act ruling still receives appellate review through the Wende procedure, but the reviewing court will affirm if its independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable error.
- The trial court's RJA remedy—striking the aggravators rather than dismissing the charges or reducing them to misdemeanors—was not challenged on appeal and removed Misu's eligibility for an upper-term sentence on any felony count.
- Misu's waiver of one year of custody credits effectuated the People's actual offer of three years in state prison after the RJA ruling made the parties' negotiated three-year top-and-bottom disposition unlawful.
- The Sixth District's earlier summary denial of Misu's writ petition seeking a more meaningful RJA remedy did not preclude this direct appeal, but the Wende review yielded no arguable issues.
- The case shows how a successful RJA motion can reshape plea negotiations by removing sentencing aggravators even when the court declines more drastic remedies.
Why It Matters
This unpublished decision applies the Wende independent-review procedure in a case where the defendant entered a negotiated no contest plea after substantial pretrial litigation, including a successful Racial Justice Act motion. It confirms that even a defendant who obtained a favorable ruling on a novel statutory claim may see the judgment affirmed on appeal when the record discloses no arguable error.
The case also illustrates the remedial flexibility trial courts hold under the Racial Justice Act: striking the aggravators served as the court's remediation for the violation, reshaping the plea bargain without dismissal of charges or reduction to misdemeanors.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket