The California Court of Appeal has upheld the sentence of Daquan Eli Tribble, who was convicted of bringing controlled substances into a jail. The court ruled on October 30, 2026, in case D085982, affirming the trial court's decision but ordering a correction to the record regarding the number of credit days Tribble earned while in custody.

This ruling affects Tribble, who had previously accepted a plea deal that led to a suspended jail sentence. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the implications of plea agreements for defendants with prior strike convictions.

Background

Daquan Eli Tribble was initially charged with bringing controlled substances into a jail, a violation of California Penal Code section 4573. In August 2024, he pled no contest to this charge in exchange for the dismissal of other charges and a sentence that included mandatory supervision along with a suspended four-year jail term. However, Tribble had a prior strike conviction, which complicated his legal situation.

After pleading no contest, Tribble violated the terms of his mandatory supervision within weeks. He was arrested after police found him with drug paraphernalia. Following a hearing in December 2024, the court determined that he had violated several conditions of his supervision, leading to the revocation of his mandatory supervision and the execution of his suspended sentence.

The Ruling

In its ruling, the court affirmed the trial court's decision regarding Tribble's sentence but ordered that the minute order from his resentencing be corrected to reflect the accurate number of credit days. The court noted that Tribble's sentence was unauthorized due to his prior strike conviction, which made him ineligible for mandatory supervision.

The court stated, "Tribble is estopped from complaining of [the] sentence[] to which [he] agreed, which included a suspended sentence of four years in jail rather than prison."

Judge Castillo, along with Justices McConnell and Amin, concurred with the decision. The court acknowledged that while Tribble's plea agreement was technically unauthorized, he had accepted the benefits of this agreement and could not later challenge it on appeal.

Impact

This ruling has important implications for future plea agreements involving defendants with prior strike convictions. It reinforces the principle that defendants who accept plea deals cannot later argue that their sentences are unauthorized if they have benefited from those deals. This could affect how similar cases are handled in the future, as defendants may be less likely to challenge their sentences if they have received favorable terms.

Furthermore, the court's order to correct the minute order highlights the importance of accurate record-keeping in the judicial process. Discrepancies between oral pronouncements and written records can lead to confusion and further legal complications.

What's Next

The court has remanded the case for the trial court to amend the minute order to reflect the correct number of credit days. Details regarding any potential appeals or related cases were not available in the court filing.