Tag Archives: Pleas and plea bargains

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 001099

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief:

The court tentatively accepted the plea bargain and took the defendant’s plea, which place a limit on the sentence that could be imposed. Afterward, the client sought release from custody pending sentencing. The court agreed provided the defendant enter a “Cruz waiver,” under which the penalty for failure to appear at sentencing would be the removal of the limit on sentence contemplated by the plea agreement.

On sentencing following the defendant failure to appear and subsequent apprehension for sentencing, the court declined to follow the plea agreement and imposed a greater term, relying on the defendant’s post-plea Cruz waiver. This was error, and the matter is remanded to the trial court to give the defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea.

First Holding:

Cruz provides a narrow exception where a trial court may withdraw its approval of the defendant’s plea and impose a sentence in excess of the bargained-for term, in cases where a defendant willfully fails to appear for sentencing after having been advised of his rights under section 1192.5 and choosing to expressly waive them.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1254, fn. 5

Second Holding:

When a guilty plea is tendered under section 1192.5, is accepted by the prosecuting attorney, and is approved by the court, the defendant 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.

If the court approves of the plea, it must inform the defendant–prior to the making of the plea–that:

(1) its approval is not binding;

(2) it may, at the time set for the hearing on the application for probation or pronouncement of judgment, withdraw its approval in light of further consideration of the matter; and

(3) in that case, the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea if the defendant desires to do so.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

Third Holding:

Appellate courts have recognized that, when there is a plea agreement between parties, and the plea is accepted by the court, that due process requires that both the defendant and the prosecution, abide by the terms of the plea agreement and that the punishment imposed not significantly exceed that which the parties agreed upon.

If the trial court disapproves of the negotiated disposition and seeks to modify it, the court must expressly tell the defendant he or she can withdraw the plea if the defendant is unwilling to accept the modified terms.

Authority:

People v. Silva (2016) 247 Cal.App.4th 578, 587–588, overruled on different grounds in People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 183

People v. Woods (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 623, 630 [the accused and the People are entitled to the benefit of the plea bargain]

People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860 [due process applies not only to the procedure of accepting the plea, but also to the implementation of the bargain itself; a violation of the bargain raises a constitutional right to some remedy]

Fourth Holding:

A defendant who fails to appear without justification is subject to punishment upon conviction of the separate offense of a willful failure to appear in an action brought at the discretion of the prosecutor, not by peremptory judicial fiat. A defendant who fails to appear for sentencing does not lose the protections of section 1192.5.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1253

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219

Fifth Holding:

A plea agreement may provide for an alternate, increased sentence if the defendant fails to appear for sentencing. However, to do so, a waiver of the defendant’s section 1192.5 rights must be obtained at the time of the court’s initial acceptance of the plea and must have occurred after an advisement under section 1192.5. If a court should fail to inform a defendant of his right to withdraw his guilty plea, even the defendant’s acceptance of the trial court’s terms will not be enough to make them a part of the plea bargain under section 1192.5.

In cases where a defendant has not been fully advised of his rights under section 1192.5 and has not expressly waived those rights, a trial court may still impose a longer term for failure to appear, so long as it does not seek to repudiate the plea bargain or to impose a sentence more onerous than that which defendant had agreed to accept as part of the bargain itself.

Authority:

People v. Cruz (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1247, 1250-1252

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1219

Sixth Holding:

In reviewing a challenge involving a plea bargain, we apply the standards of review applicable to contracts, generally. The interpretation of a contract is subject to de novo review where the interpretation does not turn on the credibility of extrinsic evidence.

Authority:

People v. Woods (2017) 12 Cal.App.5th 623, 631

Seventh Holding:

The process of plea bargaining–which has received statutory and judicial authorization as an appropriate method of disposing of criminal prosecutions–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 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.

Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and the prosecution. Because the charging function is entrusted to the executive, the court has no authority to substitute itself as the representative of the People in the negotiation process and under the guise of plea bargaining to agree to a disposition of the case over prosecutorial objection.

Authority:

People v. Clancey (2013) 56 Cal.4th 562, 569–570

Eighth Holding:

When a plea bargain is made the defendant is entitled to withdraw his plea if the negotiated bargain is incapable of actual fulfillment. Under the provisions of the authorizing statute, once the plea specifying the punishment is accepted by the prosecutor and approved by the court, the defendant cannot be sentenced on such plea to a punishment more severe than that specified in the plea and the court may not proceed as to such plea other than as specified in the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1102.5

People v. Morris (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 358, 362

Ninth Holding:

The question when distinguishing between bargained-for provisions and judicially imposed terms will be not whether the bargain occurred in a hermetically sealed environment from which the judge was excluded, but whether the return provision resulted from the give-and-take of plea bargaining or was a judicially imposed afterthought. A trial court must accept the negotiated plea or reject the bargain outright, but it cannot come up with its own number” with regard to sentencing.

Authority:

People v. Casillas (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 445, 452

People v. Stamps (2020) 9 Cal.5th 685, 708

Tenth Holding:

The trial court erred in imposing a sentence greater than the sentence agreed upon in the plea bargain without first advising defendant of his section 1192.5 rights or affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Here, whether the proffered plea was acceptable was within the exclusive discretion of the court.

However, the discretion to conditionally approve the negotiated plea bargain did not sanction the wholly unrelated and unbargained condition interjected by the court concerning an increased sentence of six years (the upper term, doubled) for defendant’s failure to appear at sentencing, as the increased sentence was imposed after the plea was accepted as a precondition to the court’s acceptance of the Cruz Waiver, without input from the prosecution, who objected to the waiver. The provision was therefore not a part of the plea agreement, not a valid Cruz waiver, and not enforceable. The Cruz waiver must be obtained at the time of the court’s initial acceptance of the plea and must have occurred after an advisement under section 1192.5.

Authority:

PEN 1192.5

People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, 942–943

People v. Smith (1971) 22 Cal.App.3d 25, 30

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1217-1219

Eleventh Holding:

When a defendant fails to appear at sentencing after entering a bargained plea with no discussion about a specific sanction for nonappearance, he or she is entitled to withdraw the plea if the court refuses to honor the plea bargain.

The same rule applies when, during the plea proceedings but after the parties have negotiated the basic plea bargain, the court imposes an additional condition providing a sanction for nonappearance. And that is the situation in this case.

It is only when the parties themselves agree as part of the plea bargain to a specific sanction for nonappearance that the court need not permit the defendant to withdraw his or her plea but may invoke the bargained-for sanction.

Authority:

People v. Masloski (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1212, 1221-1222

People v. Morris (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 358, 360-361

People v. Murray (1995) 32 Cal.App.4th 1539, 1540-1546

Twelfth Holding:

We reverse the judgment and remand the matter to allow defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea. A defendant should not be entitled to enforce an agreement between himself and the prosecutor calling for a particular disposition against the trial court absent very special circumstances. The preferred remedy in that context is to permit a defendant to withdraw his plea and to restore the proceedings to the original status quo.

Authority:

People v. Calloway (1981) 29 Cal.3d 666, 671

Thirteenth Holding:

A certificate of probable cause is not required for the defendant to raise this on appeal following his guilty plea, because this is a postplea claim involving sentencing issues that do not challenge the validity of the plea. Indeed, he seeks to enforce his plea. A certificate of probable cause is not required if the issue on appeal arose after the entry of the plea and does not affect the validity of the plea.

Authority:

People v. Cuevas (2008) 44 Cal.4th 374, 379

People v. Vargas (2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 644, 651

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Elements of crime, Plea bargains, Sentencing, Standard of review, Vicarious liability

Case 001078

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court denied the defendant’s petition under section 1172.6 at the prima facie stage, reasoning that the defendant was ineligible for relief because his plea occurred after the Legislature had eliminated liability for attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine. The trial court erred in concluding that the defendant’s plea to attempted murder after the adoption of SB 1437, but before SB 775’s effective date, standing alone, established his ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law.

Further, the minutes of the sentencing and the abstract of judgment each contain separate errors, which must be corrected on remand.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2019, SB 1437 narrowed the scope of the felony-murder rule and eliminated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a basis for murder liability. Among other things, the enactment amended section 188 to require that a principal convicted of murder act with malice aforethought. It further provided that malice shall not be imputed to a person based solely on his or her participation in a crime. It also added a procedure, now codified in section 1172.6, to permit individuals convicted of murder under prior law to request that their conviction be vacated and to seek resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Curiel (2023) 15 Cal.5th 433, 448-450

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature adopted SB 775 to expressly allow those convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine or manslaughter to seek resentencing under section 1172.6. The Legislature enacted the provision to clarify that persons who were convicted of attempted murder or manslaughter under a theory of felony murder and the natural and probable consequences doctrine are permitted the same relief as those persons convicted of murder under the same theories. The law took effect on January 1, 2022.

Authority:

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544, 548

Third Holding:

A person convicted of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine may file a petition to have his or her conviction vacated when:

(1) the charges filed against the person allowed the prosecution to proceed on a theory of attempted murder under the natural and probable consequences doctrine;

(2) the person was convicted of attempted murder after trial or accepted a guilty plea in lieu of a trial at which he or she could have been convicted of attempted murder; and

(3) the person could not presently be convicted of attempted murder because of changes to section 188 made effective January 1, 2019.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(a)

Fourth Holding:

After briefing on the petition, the trial court must hold a hearing to determine whether the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for relief. If the petition and record establish conclusively that the defendant is ineligible for relief, the trial court may dismiss the petition.

If instead the petition shows a prima facie entitlement to relief, the court must issue an order to show cause and hold an evidentiary hearing at which the prosecution bears the burden of proving, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the petitioning defendant is guilty of attempted murder under section 188 as amended.

If the prosecution fails to carry its burden, the challenged conviction and any accompanying allegations or enhancements must be vacated and the petitioner resentenced on any remaining charges.

Authority:

PEN 1172.6(c), (d)

People v. Strong (2022) 13 Cal.5th 698, 708-709

Fifth Holding:

A trial court’s inquiry into whether a petitioner has stated a prima facie case for relief is limited. The court takes the petitioner’s factual allegations as true and makes a preliminary assessment regarding whether the petitioner would be entitled to relief if his or her factual allegations were proved.

The record of conviction necessarily informs the court’s inquiry. If the record contains facts refuting the allegations in the petition, the court may make a credibility determination adverse to the petitioner. A petitioner who offers only conclusory allegations of entitlement to relief under section 1172.6, in response to a record of conviction that demonstrates the petitioner’s conviction was under a still-valid theory, has not, thereby, made a prima facie showing.

But a trial court may not engage in factfinding involving the weighing of evidence or the exercise of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 971-972

People v. Patton (2025) 17 Cal.5th 549, 557, 563

Sixth Holding:

We review de novo a trial court’s decision to deny a section 1172.6 petition at the prima facie stage.

Authority:

People v. Ervin (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 90, 101

Seventh Holding:

When the defendant changed his plea in 2021, before SB 775 took effect, the Courts of Appeal were divided on whether SB 1437 had abrogated the natural and probable consequences doctrine as a valid basis for an attempted murder prosecution.

It was not until SB 775 became effective in January 2022—several months after the defendant pleaded guilty—that the law expressly eliminated that possibility. It therefore would have been theoretically possible, at the time of the defendant’s prosecution, for the People to proceed against him under a natural and probable consequences theory of attempted murder.

Accordingly, the trial court erred in concluding that the defendant’s plea to attempted murder after the adoption of SB 1437, but before SB 775’s effective date, standing alone, established his ineligibility for resentencing as a matter of law.

Authority:

People v. Alaybue (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 207, 222

People v. Coley (2022) 77 Cal.App.5th 539, 544

Eighth Holding:

The sentencing minutes incorrectly reflect that the defendant’s attempted murders were willful, deliberate, and premeditated. We direct the trial court to amend the minutes to delete the “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” language.

The abstract of judgment incorrectly reflects the defendant’s sentence for the two attempted murders as 15 years and 4 years, respectively. If the attempted murders are not vacated on remand after hearing on the 1172.6 petition, the trial court shall amend the abstract of judgment to correctly state that his sentences for those two convictions are nine years and two years, four months, respectively.

(Gary note: The court did not cite authority for its orders to correct the minutes and the abstract of judgment, though there is much authority available. I have set forth a few that would support the court’s action.)

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Plea bargains, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 001066

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The four-year term of probation is stricken and modified to reflect the agreed-upon three-year term.

Holding:

The defendant entered into a plea bargain in which he would be granted probation for a period of three years. The probation officer’s report spelled out recommended terms and conditions of probation, but recommended that probation be for four years. The court sentenced the defendant to a term in state prison, suspended execution of sentence, and placed the defendant on probation for four years. Neither the court nor any party present noted, explained, or challenged on the record the imposition of the four-year probationary term.

The Attorney General agrees that the court erroneously violated the terms of the plea agreement by placing the defendant on probation for a period longer than the agreed-upon three years and further agrees that the defendant’s challenge to the court’s violation of the plea agreement is not waived, and thus does not address the defendant’s alterative claim of ineffective assistance of counsel.

The usual remedies for violation of a plea bargain are to allow defendant to withdraw the plea and go to trial on the original charges, or to specifically enforce the plea bargain. Specific enforcement is appropriate when it will implement the reasonable expectations of the parties without binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances. The four-year term of probation is stricken and modified to reflect the agreed-upon three-year term.

Authority:

People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860–861

Abstracts and Minutes, Duty of the court, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 001063

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term. As we are remanding for a full resentencing, the parties may address their issues in the trial court with the accuracy of the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Section 1237.5 provides that an appeal may not be taken after a plea of guilty or no contest unless the defendant has filed a statement showing reasonable grounds for appeal and the trial court has executed and filed a certificate of probable cause.

Courts have recognized two exceptions to this certificate requirement. A certificate is not required for: (1) issues involving a search and seizure, the validity of which was contested under section 1538.5, and (2) issues regarding proceedings held after the plea for the purpose of determining the degree of the crime and the penalty to be imposed.

Regarding this latter category, the the critical inquiry is whether a challenge to the sentence is in substance a challenge to the validity of the plea, thus rendering the appeal subject to the requirements of section 1237.5. The parties to a plea agreement are free to make any lawful bargain they choose, and the exact bargain they make affects whether a subsequent appeal, in substance, is an attack on the validity of the plea.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 780, 781-782, 785

Second Holding:

Where a defendant has agreed to a specified sentence in return for his or her plea, the defendant must obtain a certificate of probable cause to challenge the trial court’s imposition of that exact sentence on appeal.

Authority:

People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 73, 78 [one who agreed to a specific sentence in return for his plea must obtain a certificate of probable cause in order to claim on appeal that the agreed sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295 [defendants are estopped from complaining of sentences to which they agreed]

Third Holding:

But where a defendant negotiates a plea term which provides for a maximum sentence, rather than a specified sentence, which necessarily contemplates further adversary proceedings in which the trial court must exercise its discretion to determine the appropriate sentence within the constraints of the bargain, a certificate of probable cause is not required because, in substance, the defendant’s appeal of the selected sentence is not an attack upon the plea itself.

Authority:

People v. Buttram (2003) 30 Cal.4th 773, 785

Fourth Holding:

The trial court erred by not staying the sentence on the felon in possession conviction (count 3) in Case B because the offense was based on the same act or course of conduct underlying the defendant’s hotel burglary conviction (count 1) for which the court imposed a six-year term.

The defendant was convicted of burglary by taking the firearm and then of possessing the firearm after she took it. Under these circumstances, there is a course of conduct pursuant to one criminal objective—to possess the firearm by stealing it from the hotel room—and based on that defendant cannot be punished for both offenses under section 654.

Authority:

PEN 654

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1239 [sec. 654 precluded punishment for both grand theft of a firearm and being a felon in possession of the same firearm]

People v. Alford (2010) 180 Cal.App.4th 1463, 1468 [recognizing sec. 654 has been held to preclude punishment for both burglary and theft where the burglary is based on an entry with intent to commit that theft]

Fifth Holding:

Section 654 provides that an act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision. At its simplest, section 654 proscribes double punishment for multiple violations of the Penal Code based on the same act or omission.

Whether a course of criminal conduct is divisible and therefore gives rise to more than one act within the meaning of section 654 depends on the intent and objective of the actor. If all of the offenses were incident to one objective, the defendant may be punished for any one of such offenses but not for more than one. Previously, trial courts were required to impose the longest possible term when section 654 applied. In January 2022, the statute was amended to provide courts with discretion to select either the greater or the lesser term and stay execution of the remaining term.

(Gary note, of marginal historical interest at best–noted also in my summary of case 000855: Prior to 1998, Penal Code section 654 had exactly the same language as it currently has, and a court was free to impose sentence on any one of the counts to which section 654 applied. See People v. Norrell (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1. In response to that Supreme Court decision, the Legislature amended section 654 to require that the court impose sentence on the count containing the longest potential term. Through AB 518, effective 1/1/2022, the Legislature restored section 654 to its former language, thus restoring to the court the discretion to choose on which count punishment should be imposed and executed. Now you know.)

Authority:

PEN 654(a)

People v. Atencio (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 1239, 1243

People v. Latimer (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1203, 1208

Sixth Holding:

A sentence in violation of section 654 is an unauthorized sentence that generally may be corrected on appeal without an objection by the defendant in the trial court. This general rule, however, is subject to an exception. Where a defendant has pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts will not find error even though the trial court acted in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, so long as the trial court did not lack fundamental jurisdiction. The exception does not preclude defendant from raising section 654 on appeal where the plea does not have the defendant agreeing to a specific term.

Authority:

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.412(b) [By agreeing to a specified term in prison personally and by counsel, a defendant who is sentenced to that term or a shorter one abandons any claim that a component of the sentence violates section 654’s prohibition of double punishment, unless that claim is asserted at the time the agreement is recited on the record]

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Seventh Holding:

When part of a sentence is stricken on review, on remand for resentencing, a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances. Upon remand, the trial court may revisit all of its sentencing choices in formulating an aggregate term, and must impose a sentence for each of defendant’s convictions.

Authority:

People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893

People v. Valenzuela (2019) 7 Cal.5th 415, 424-425 [as commonly applied, the full resentencing rule allows a court to revisit all prior sentencing decisions when resentencing a defendant]

Eighth Holding:

Both parties agree that the abstract of judgment contains errors. They do not necessarily agree on the errors. Because we are remanding the case for a full resentencing hearing, which will necessitate a new abstract of judgment, we need not address the parties’ contentions regarding alleged errors in the current abstract. The parties may address any arguments regarding the correct amount of the fees and fines to the trial court during the resentencing hearing.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [an abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction and does not control if it differs from the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment]

Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Plea bargains

Case 001057

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We modify the judgment to dismiss defendant’s misdemeanor conviction as contemplated by the parties’ plea agreement and affirm the judgment as modified.

Holding:

The terms of the parties’ plea agreement required the trial court to dismiss the misdemeanor count for carrying a dirk or dagger (count 2) because defendant failed to successfully complete probation, leaving the felony count remaining. While the trial court sentenced defendant to two years on the felony count, it did not address the misdemeanor count. In accordance with the parties’ plea agreement, we shall dismiss defendant’s misdemeanor conviction for carrying a dirk or dagger.

Authority:

People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930-931 [a plea agreement is a contract that is binding upon the parties and the court]