Error and/or relief
Following the defendant’s failure to appear for sentencing, the court declined to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor as contemplated by the plea agreement that was accompanied by a Cruz waiver. This was error, as the court did not find that the defendant wilfully failed to appear for sentencing.
First Holding:
In Cruz, our Supreme Court held a defendant who pleads guilty pursuant to a plea bargain that is subsequently disapproved by the trial court for defendant’s failure to appear is entitled to withdraw his or her plea. But if the defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing the trial court may withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained for term.
Any such waiver, of course, would have to be obtained at the time of the trial court’s initial acceptance of the plea, and it must be knowing and intelligent.
Authority:
People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1249
People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 265
Second Holding:
Here, the trial court did not advise the defendant of his right to withdraw his plea if the court imposed a more severe sentence. Nor did the court advise him that his conviction would not be reduced to a misdemeanor if he willfully failed to appear for sentencing. But the defendant’s written plea form stated that he would not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea and that his negotiated disposition would be cancelled if he willfully failed to appear at sentencing.
To deprive him of the benefit of his plea bargain, the trial court must find that the defendant willfully failed to appear at his sentencing hearing. A defendant acts willfully if he knows what he is doing and intends to do it. The term ‘willful’ requires only that the prohibited act occur intentionally.
Authority:
PEN 7(b)(1)
People v. Atkins (2001) 25 Cal.4th 76, 85–86
In re Jerry R. (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1432, 1438
Third Holding:
It is the People’s burden to prove a defendant willfully failed to appear for sentencing after being released pursuant to a Cruz waiver. This burden requires the People to present admissible evidence.
The People concede they did not present sufficient evidence to show appellant willfully failed to appear for sentencing. In fact, they presented no evidence. The People relied on the prosecutor’s conclusion that there’s a willful failure to appear because the defendant is responsible for getting to court for sentencing.
Authority:
People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 265
Fourth Holding:
From our review of the record, it does not appear that the trial court found, explicitly or implicitly, that the defendant’s failure to appear was willful. We presume that a trial court understands and properly carries out its duties. But the trial court’s statements here suggest that it did not consider whether the defendant’s failure to appear was willful. On this record, we must conclude that the trial court imposed the greater term of a felony conviction exclusively on the fact of the defendant’s failure to appear for the hearing, without determining whether the failure to appear was willful.
The matter is remanded to the superior court so that it can give the parties the opportunity to present evidence and to make a finding of whether the defendat’s failure to appear at his sentencing hearing was willful.
Authority:
EVID 664
People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114
People v. Jones (2026) 119 Cal.App.5th 261, 266