Category Archives: Plea bargains

Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000804

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When the defendant pleaded guilty, the agreement was that he would be placed on probation, and if he violated probation and it was revoked, he would be sentenced to prison for three years. It was error on revocation of probation for the court to sentence him to four years.

First Holding:

The process of plea negotiation contemplates an agreement negotiated by the People and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty or no contest in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he were convicted of all offenses charged.

This more lenient disposition of the charges is secured in part by prosecutorial consent to the imposition of such clement punishment, by the People’s acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense than that charged, either in degree or kind, or by the prosecutor’s dismissal of one or more counts of a multi-count indictment or information.

Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and prosecution. But implicit in all of this is a process of bargaining between the adverse parties to the case—the People represented by the prosecutor on one side, the defendant represented by his counsel on the other—which bargaining results in an agreement between them.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929–930

People v. Prudholme (2023) 14 Cal.5th 961, 970

Second Holding:

The prosecutor is the only party authorized to negotiate on behalf of the state, and the trial court cannot substitute itself in place of the prosecutor. Such judicial activity would contravene express statutory provisions requiring the prosecutor’s consent to the proposed disposition, would detract from the judge’s ability to remain detached and neutral in evaluating the voluntariness of the plea and the fairness of the bargain to society as well as to the defendant, and would present a substantial danger of unintentional coercion of defendants who may be intimidated by the judge’s participation in the matter.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930

Third Holding:

Because a negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, it is interpreted according to general contract principles. Acceptance of the agreement binds the court and the parties to the agreement. [When a guilty or nolo contendere plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930-931

Fourth Holding:

Although a plea agreement does not divest the court of its inherent sentencing discretion, a judge who has accepted a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. Should the court consider the plea bargain to be unacceptable, its remedy is to reject it, not to violate it, either directly or indirectly. Once the court has accepted the terms of the negotiated plea, it lacks jurisdiction to alter the terms of a plea bargain so that it becomes more favorable to a defendant unless, of course, the parties agree.

For its part, of course, the trial court may decide not to approve the terms of a plea agreement negotiated by the parties. If the court does not believe the agreed-upon disposition is fair, the court ‘need not approve a bargain reached between the prosecution and the defendant, but it cannot change that bargain or agreement without the consent of both parties.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

Fifth Holding:

When the plea is accepted by the prosecuting attorney in open court and is approved by the court, the defendant, except as otherwise provided in this section, cannot be sentenced on the plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to the plea other than as specified in the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5(b)

Sixth Holding:

Thus, a court may not modify the terms of a plea agreement while otherwise leaving the agreement intact, nor may the court effectively withdraw its approval by later modifying the terms of the agreement it had approved. When a court accepts a plea bargain, it must impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain.

Authority:

People v. Brooks (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1099, 1107

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

People v. Cunningham (1996) 49 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1047

Seventh Holding:

It is well settled that a criminal defendant cannot argue for the first time on appeal that the trial court aggravated a sentence based on items contained in a probation report that were erroneous or otherwise flawed. The defendant did not object to the recommendation in the probation report that he be sentenced to four years, nor did he object when the court imposed that term.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351–352

People v. Victorian (1992) 2 Cal.App.4th 954, 958

Eighth Holding:

Defendant raises the alternate argument that the trial attorney was prejudicially ineffective for failing to object to the trial court’s imposition of the four-year term. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance, a defendant must show both that counsel’s performance was deficient—it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness—and that defendant was thereby prejudiced.

Such prejudice exists only if the record shows that but for counsel’s defective performance there is a reasonable probability the result of the proceeding would have been different. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance on appeal the record must affirmatively disclose the lack of a rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission.

Authority:

People v. Cash (2002) 28 Cal.4th 703, 734

Ninth Holding:

In the usual case, where counsel’s trial tactics or strategic reasons for challenged decisions do not appear on the record, we will not find ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal unless there could be no conceivable reason for counsel’s acts or omissions.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2003) 29 Cal.4th 1229, 1254

Tenth Holding:

It appears that between the time of the plea agreement in 2022 and the revocation proceedings in 2025, the trial court and the parties were unaware of the terms and conditions of the plea agreement, that the court did not withdraw its approval of the plea agreement, the plea agreement was never modified, and the probation report’s recommendation of the upper term violated the terms and conditions of the plea agreement as agreed to by the prosecution and defendant in 2022.

Instead, it appears the probation officer unilaterally recommended the upper term of four years without consideration of the plea agreement for the midterm of three years.

Defendant is not seeking a sentence outside the terms of the plea agreement but seeking to enforce the plea agreement. When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Therefore, we direct modification of the abstract of judgment to reflect the sentence agreed to by the parties and approved by the trial court in 2022—that defendant should be sentenced to the midterm of three years.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80

 

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000792

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170(d), because (a) it incorrectly concluded that section 1171 barred resentencing where the original sentence was agreed on by the parties, and (b) it incorrectly believed that the parties had originally agreed to the sentence imposed. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not consider whether, despite the availability of youthful offender parole, the defendant’s determinate sentence is a de facto LWOP sentence, we leave that issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing. To the contrary, the section expressly authorizes modification after a plea. It states that, absent a more specific statutory rule, in a postconviction proceeding to modify a sentence pursuant to an ameliorative statute the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea.

The statute then provides that a plea bargain may not be rescinded based upon such modification: Any change to a sentence shall not be basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Thus, section 1171 expressly authorizes trial courts to modify sentences imposed after a plea bargain and prohibits rescission of bargains based on such modification. The trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement

Authority:

PEN 1171(a), (c)(2) and (c)(3)

Second Holding:

Section 1170(d), under certain circumstances, provides for the recall and resentencing of juvenile offenders [who were tried as adults] with LWOP sentences.

(Gary note: without citation to published authority directly discussing this point, the unpublished opinion concludes that the use of the term “life without the possibility of parole” in section 1170(d) does not mention any specific statutes imposing LWOP sentences, such as section 190.5.

(This court infers from that lack of specificity that the Legislature must have intended that section 1170(d) apply whenever a candidate has received a sentence that, effectively, precludes parole in his or her lifetime. In other words, this unpublished opinion’s reasoning on this point is that section 1170(d), by its very terms, contemplates both express LWOP sentences and de facto LWOP sentences (sentences whose terms cannot be completed within a reasonable lifetime).

(The court states, “Thus, the Legislature appears to have intended section 1170(d) to be interpreted in a practical rather than technical manner to apply not only to formal LWOP sentences but also to de facto LWOP sentences that effectively render a juvenile offender ineligible for parole before they are expected to die.”

(Keep in mind that my description of this part of the holding is placed in a bracketed “Gary note,” and I may be oversimplifying and even misstating the court’s reasoning on this point. I simply thought it was an interesting approach that may prove useful.

(Also, the county’s District Attorney “invited” the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.  I suspect it is because the Attorney General actually represented the People in this appeal, and the DA would have had no standing to file a petition for review.  The Supreme Court has granted itself to a date in October 2026 to decide whether to grant review on its own motion.

(UPDATE OCTOBER 21, 2026:  The Supreme Court granted and held review on this case in September 2026.  “The court ordered briefing deferred pending decision in [another Supreme Court case already granted review], which presents the following issue: Is a juvenile homicide offender sentenced to 50 years to life in prison entitled to recall and resentencing under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (d)(1) on the ground that the sentence is the functional equivalent of life imprisonment without parole?”

(I will try to follow that lead case and this case, and update when there is resolution.  I have signed up for notification on both the Court of Appeal case and the Supreme Court case once they are resolved.

(The issue on review in that other case pertains solely to functional equivalence of life without parole, and does not seem to address any impact of section 1170.1.)

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(5)

Third Holding:

A practical interpretation of section 1170(d) is also supported by constitutional considerations. At least four Court of Appeal decisions have held that restricting resentencing under Section 1170(d) to juvenile offenders with formal LWOP sentences is irrational and violates equal protection, though others have disagreed.

Authority:

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450-454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 631-634

Contra: People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 1002-1006

Contra: People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1075-1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540

Fourth Holding:

Nonetheless, interpreting section 1170(d) to be limited to formal LWOP sentences plainly raises a serious constitutional question, and it is well-established that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions where they are reasonably susceptible to a reasonable alternative interpretation that do not raise such questions. Accordingly, we conclude that section 1170(d) should be interpreted to apply to de facto as well as formal LWOP sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 862 [If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will raise serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.]

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 339 [A statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question.]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court held that the defendant was not serving a de facto LWOP sentence because he is eligible for youthful offender parole under section 3051 and, in fact, already has received a youthful offender parole hearing. We disagree. Youthful offender parole is available to all juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences, whether formal or not.

Moreover, the Legislature extended youthful offender parole hearings to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences in 2017, five years after enacting section 1170(d). In so doing, the Legislature did not indicate that it intended to end resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences under section 1170(d), and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes.

Accordingly, in determining whether an individual was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole under section 1170(d), youthful offender parole should be disregarded.

Authority:

PEN 3051(b)(4)

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 845

Garris v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 477

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 447-448

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

Immigration, Plea bargains, Standard of review

Case 000688

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by denying the defendant’s motion to vacate his conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7(a)(1)

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available.

However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Third Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319-320

Fourth Holding:

While the judge who took the plea in 1995 declared her practice was to ensure defendants received sufficient immigration advisements, she mentions only possible consequences. She does not state she or the district attorney made the mandatory consequences explicit. Because the defendant’s plea predated Padilla, the requirement making this advisement mandatory for defense counsel did not yet exist. Without an explicit statement about the mandatory consequences, the immigration advisement was inadequate.

Authority:

Padilla v. Kentucky (2010) 559 U.S. 356

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 905–906 [where immigration consequences are clear and virtually certain, after 2010 counsel now must advise client of those consequences]

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523 [failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient]

Fifth Holding:

To determine prejudice, we focus on whether there is a reasonable probability the defendant would have turned down the plea agreement had he understood the immigration consequences. [The court then described his ties to the United states.] We also determine whether there was reason for the defendant to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was possible. His attorney testified to several other crimes to which the defendant could have pleaded that would have been better for his immigration prospects. Although his exposure was eight years, his plea agreement was for less than a year of prison time. He may have needed to accept a longer prison time to obtain a lesser conviction, but he averred this willingness.

The sparse record we have does not provide reason to believe the prosecutor would have rejected such a proposal automatically. Moreover, though the trial court stated, and the prosecutor argues, it would have been irrational to roll the dice on a longer sentence with such an offer in hand, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized that someone in the defendant’s position might indeed rationally make such a decision, as the defendant affirmed he would have.

Authority:

Lee v. United States (2017) 582 U.S. 357, 371

Appellate Principles, Juveniles, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000684

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The juvenile court erred when it set minor’s maximum confinement term at 33 years plus 25 years to life. We modify the maximum term of confinement to 25 years eight months plus 25 years to life.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, the Legislature passed SB 1391. The amendment eliminated the transfer of juveniles accused of committing crimes when they are 14 or 15 years old, unless they are first apprehended after the end of juvenile court jurisdiction. One year later, in 2020, the Legislature passed juvenile justice realignment through SB 823. It overhauled juvenile wardship law by closing the Division of Juvenile Justice and transferring jurisdiction over youthful offenders to counties, with the stated purpose of ensuring minors are closer to their families and communities and receive age appropriate treatment.

Authority:

WIC 707(a)

WIC 736.5

O.G. v. Superior Court of Ventura County (2011) 11 Cal.5th 82, 89

In re M.B. (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 435, 448

In re T.O. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 252, 262–263

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 907

Second Holding:

Section 875, effective May 14, 2021, was added as part of the juvenile justice realignment. Under the new scheme, commencing July 1, 2021, the court may order that a minor who is 14 years of age or older be committed to Secure Youth Treatment Facility if the minor meets certain criteria.

Authority:

WIC 875(a)

In re J.P. (2023) 94 Cal.App.5th 74, 78

Third Holding:

Section 875(b)(1) states the baseline term must be based on the most serious recent offense for which the minor has been adjudicated and shall represent the time in custody necessary to meet the developmental and treatment needs of the minor and to prepare the minor for discharge to a period of probation supervision in the community. The baseline term must be consistent with specified guidelines and may deviate by no more than six months.

Authority:

WIC 875(b)(1)

Fourth Holding:

In deciding minor’s placement, the juvenile court has maximum flexibility to craft suitable orders aimed at rehabilitating the particular minor before it.

Dispositional orders must conform with the purposes of juvenile delinquency laws, which are “twofold: (1) to serve the best interests of the delinquent minor by providing care, treatment, and guidance to rehabilitate the minor and enable him or her to be a law abiding and productive member of his or her family and the community, and (2) to provide for the protection and safety of the public.

It must consider the broadest range of information in determining how best to rehabilitate a minor and afford him adequate care. A disposition hearing record should reflect evidence that the proposed means of rehabilitation will result in probable benefit to the minor, and that the goals of the juvenile law could not have been met by a less restrictive placement.

Authority:

In re James R. (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 413, 432

In re Carlos J. (2018) 22 Cal.App.5th 1, 7

In re Michael D. (1987) 188 Cal.App.3d 1392

In re Miguel C. (2021) 69 Cal.App.5th 899, 906

In re Charles G. (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 608, 614

In re Robert H. (2002) 96 Cal.App.4th 1317, 1329

Fifth Holding:

Plea bargains are an accepted and integral component of the criminal justice system and essential to the expeditious and fair administration of our courts. Plea bargaining is a common feature in juvenile delinquency proceedings, just as it is in criminal proceedings in adult court. Similar principles apply in both settings.

A plea bargain is a contract between the accused and the prosecutor. Both of these parties are bound to the terms of the agreement; when the court approves the plea bargain, it also agrees to be bound by its terms. Both the accused and the prosecution are entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain. When either the prosecution or the defendant is deprived of benefits for which it has bargained, corresponding relief will lie from concessions made.

Authority:

People v. Collins (1978) 21 Cal.3d 208, 214

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929

In re Kenneth H. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 143 [It is well settled that a plea bargain is a tripartite agreement which requires the consent of the defendant, the People and the court]

In re Jermaine B. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 634, 639 [Plea bargaining is an accepted practice in our criminal justice system]

People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 533

People v. Armendariz (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 906, 911

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80 [When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties must abide by the terms of the agreement]

Sixth Holding:

Although a plea agreement does not divest the court of its inherent sentencing discretion, a judge who has accepted a plea bargain is bound to impose a sentence within the limits of that bargain. A plea agreement is, in essence, a contract between the defendant and the prosecutor to which the court consents to be bound. Should the court consider the plea bargain to be unacceptable, its remedy is to reject it, not to violate it, directly or indirectly.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 931

People v. Ames (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 1214, 1217

Seventh Holding:

The court, upon sentencing, has broad discretion to withdraw its prior approval of a negotiated plea. Such withdrawal is permitted, for example, in those instances where the court becomes more fully informed about the case, or where, after further consideration, the court concludes that the bargain is not in the best interests of society. In deciding whether or not to withdraw approval of a plea bargain, the court may of course be expected to consult the probation report.

Authority:

eople v. Johnson (1974) 10 Cal.3d 868, 873

People v. Superior Court (Gifford) (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 1333, 1338

People v. Stringham (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 184, 194

Eighth Holding:

A minor who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the juvenile court in that court has forfeited his or her right to raise the claim on appeal. The purpose of the forfeiture rule is to encourage parties to bring errors to the attention of the court—so any error may be corrected. While forfeiture is the failure to make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right.

Authority:

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880; In re F.M. (2023) 14 Cal.5th 701, 710

In re S.B. (2004) 32 Cal.4th 1287, 1293, superseded by statute on another ground

In re M.R. (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 269, 273–274

United States v. Olano (1993) 507 U.S. 725, 733–734

In re Uriah R. (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1152, 1155 [A broad or general waiver such as ‘I waive my appeal rights,’ will include error occurring prior to the waiver, but not subsequent error because the defendant could not make ‘a knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal any unforeseen or unknown future error]

Ninth Holding:

The juvenile court incorrectly calculated the determinative portion of the term for count 2, the primary offense, as 19 years. Attempted murder, the offense in count 2, has a sentencing triad of five, seven, or nine years, for which the juvenile court imposed the upper term of nine years plus a 10 year term for the attendant gang enhancement pursuant to Penal Code section 186.22(b)(1)(C).

However, section 875(c)(1)(B) specifically states the term chosen by the juvenile court cannot exceed the middle term for which an adult would be eligible, with some exceptions. Therefore, the court erred in imposing the upper term for count 2.

Authority:

WIC 875(c)(1)(B)

Tenth Holding:

The juvenile court also miscalculated the consecutive term for count 1. Count 1 was the subordinate term, and the court was limited to one-third of the middle term plus one-third of the enhancements.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1

Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Plea bargains

Case 000679

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Count ten as pled created a legal impossibility requiring reversal of the trial court’s acceptance of defendant’s plea agreement.

First Holding:

A claim not presented in the opening brief and was first raised in the appellant’s reply brief is deemed waived.

Authority:

People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527, 550, fn. 9

Second Holding:

Generally, a guilty or no contest plea precludes appellate consideration of issues related to guilt or innocence, including the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction. Nonetheless, a defendant may still assert that his, her, or their admission included a legal impossibility.

Authority:

People v. Palmer (2013) 58 Cal.4th 110, 114

People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1365

Third Holding:

The term ‘legal impossibility,’ as applied to a choate [sic] crime, is merely a catch phrase for saying that, as a matter of law, the statute under which the defendant is charged does not prohibit his, her, or their conduct. Put another way, legal impossibility exists when the facts as admitted cannot constitute the crime pled to, such as where the victim’s characteristics fall outside of the statutory definition.

Authority:

People v. Jerome (1984) 160 Cal.App.3d 1087, 1094, 1099 [setting aside plea to oral copulation of a minor under 14 where the victim was 15]

People v. Richardson (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 360, 371-375 [setting aside no contest plea to human trafficking of a minor where victim was not a minor]

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781 [a death certificate is not an instrument within the meaning of section 115, so it was legally impossible for the defendant to be guilty of section 115 for attempting to forge a death certificate]

Fourth Holding:

We conclude that because section 134 [essentially, falsifying a document for a fraudulent or deceitful purpose] is not one of the specifically enumerated offenses in section 653f(a) [solicitation of another to commit specified crimes] and given that the elements of a section 134 offense do not necessarily establish one of the specifically enumerated offenses, defendant’s plea to violating section 653f(a) by committing a violation of section 134 has resulted in a legal impossibility requiring reversal.

Authority:

People v. Soriano (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 781, 784, 786