People v. Crandell

• Decision Date: 30 April 2007
• Docket Number: No. S134883.,S134883.
• Citation: 156 P.3d 364,40 Cal.4th 1301,57 Cal.Rptr.3d 349
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey David CRANDELL, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Supreme Court

57 Cal.Rptr.3d 349

40 Cal.4th 1301

156 P.3d 364

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Jeffrey David CRANDELL, Defendant and Appellant.

No. S134883.

Supreme Court of California.

April 30, 2007.

Jonathan Grossman, under appointment by the Supreme Court, Santa Clara, and Larry L. Dixon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, Jackson, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Manuel M. Medeiros, State Solicitor General, Donald E. De Nicola, Deputy State Solicitor General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan, Rene A. Chacon and David M. Baskind, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

WERDEGAR, J.

The trial court imposed on defendant a restitution fine of $2,600 that had not been mentioned by the prosecutor when he recited the parties' plea agreement. Defendant contends imposition of the fine violated his plea bargain and he therefore is entitled, pursuant to People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861 (Walker), to have the fine reduced to the statutory minimum of $200. (See Pen.Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1); Walker, at p. 1029, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861.) We conclude the error that occurred in Walker did not occur here. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

Background

In November 2002, defendant, armed with a .45-caliber handgun, entered an apartment and ordered its two occupants not to move. Two accomplices also entered. Defendant brandished his gun and demanded the victims' wallets; after obtaining them, he bound the victims' wrists and ankles with tape. Defendant and his accomplices then left, taking some electronic components and marijuana plants with them. A short time later, police apprehended the three, and the victims identified them as the perpetrators.

The Santa Clara County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant and his accomplices with two counts of first degree robbery in violation of Penal Code sections 211 and 212.5.¹ The complaint further alleged that defendant used a firearm during the commission of the robbery. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).)

Defendant and the People entered into a negotiated disposition. At the change of plea hearing in September 2003, the district attorney amended the complaint to include both victims in one count of robbery and moved to dismiss the second count. When the trial court directed the district attorney to "state the offered disposition," the district attorney responded: "As to the defendant Jeffrey David Crandell, the People have made the following offer: If he should plead no contest or guilty to Count One as amended and admit the enhancement of Penal Code Section 12022.53(b), the offer is to dismiss Count Two and the enhancement on Count Two as well. And that would be for a 13-year top bottom." A moment later, defendant's counsel responded, "Yes, your Honor," to the court's question whether defendant would accept the district attorney's offer.

"Do you understand, Mr. Crandell," the court then asked, "that the maximum time you could be sentenced to if you were convicted of this one charge at a later time or if you were to plead guilty or no contest at a later time, the maximum would be sixteen years in state prison?" Defendant said, "yes." The court continued: "The district attorney has offered that you will go to state prison, but it will be for 13 years, no more, no less, [f] Do you understand that?" Defendant answered, "Yes, ma'am."

In further colloquy a few moments later, the trial court advised defendant of various consequences his pleading guilty or no contest would have. The court warned defendant he would "have to pay a restitution fund fine of a minimum of $200, a maximum of $10,000." The trial court also notified defendant it "could impose a general fund fine of up to $10,000." Defendant told the court he understood these things.

After additional advisements, the trial court asked defendant whether "anyone made any promises to you other than what I promised you here today in open court? [¶] And all I promised you is Mr. Crandell, 13 years in prison.... [¶] Has anyone made any other promises to you, Mr. Crandell?" Defendant answered, "No, ma'am." Defendant also acknowledged that he was pleading freely and voluntarily.

Immediately thereafter, the trial court amended count one as the parties had agreed and asked, "How do you plead to that charge, Mr. Crandell?" Defendant responded, "No contest." He also admitted the truth of the firearm allegation.

The trial court thereupon accepted defendant's plea, finding it to have been free and voluntary. The court did not admonish defendant on his right to withdraw the plea should the court subsequently withdraw its approval. (§ 1192.5.)

The probation officer's report on defendant's case was prepared after defendant's plea had been taken. The report recommended imposition of a $2,600 restitution fine, using the mathematical formula found in section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(2),² and a $2,600 parole revocation fine, pursuant to section 1202.45,³ the latter to be suspended.

At the sentencing hearing in April 2004, defendant moved to withdraw his no contest plea, asserting he had been under the influence of prescription medication for a psychiatric disorder at the time of the plea and that the court had not fully explained to him his rights respecting the firearm enhancement allegation. Defendant's motion made no mention of the potential imposition of a restitution or parole revocation fine as recommended in the probation report.

The trial court denied defendant's motion and sentenced him to 13 years in state prison—the lower statutory term of three years for residential robbery, plus 10 years for the firearm enhancement. Consistently with the probation officer's recommendation, the court also imposed a restitution fine of $2,600.⁴ Defendant's counsel argued for reducing the amount of the fine, but did not object that its imposition violated the plea agreement.

Defendant appealed on the ground the trial court violated the plea agreement by imposing the $2,600 restitution fine. A divided Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment in its entirety. We granted defendant's petition for review.

Discussion

"The Supreme Court has ... recognized that due process applies not only to the procedure of accepting the plea [citation], but that the requirements of due process attach also to the implementation of the bargain itself. It necessarily follows that violation of the plea bargain by an officer of the state raises a constitutional right to some remedy." (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860, 187 Cal. Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211 [citing Santobello v. New York (1971) 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427].)

In Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1 Cal. Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861, the trial court imposed a restitution fine on a defendant who had pled guilty in accordance with a plea bargain that made no mention of restitution. The probation report recommended a $7,000 restitution fine, but "the record disclose[d] no other mention of the possibility of such a fine prior to sentencing" (id. at p. 1019, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861). Observing that the "consequences to the defendant [of a restitution fine] are severe enough that it qualifies as punishment for this purpose" (id. at p. 1024, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861), we held that, "[a]bsent compliance with the section 1192.5 procedure [informing defendant of the right to withdraw a disapproved plea], the defendant's constitutional right to the benefit of his bargain is not waived by a mere failure to object at sentencing" (id. at p. 1025, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861) when a restitution fine not bargained for is imposed.

In the course of deciding Walker, we carefully distinguished "two related but distinct legal principles" (Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1020, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861) that may apply when a restitution fine is erroneously imposed. "The first principle concerns the necessary advisements whenever a defendant pleads guilty, whether or not the guilty plea is part of a plea bargain." (Ibid.) These include "both the constitutional rights that are being waived and the direct consequence of his plea." (Id. at p. 1022, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861.) "The second principle is that the parties must adhere to the terms of a plea bargain. [Citation.] [¶] In any given case, there may be a violation of the advisement requirement, of the plea bargain, or of both. Although these possible violations are related, they must be analyzed separately, for the nature of the rights involved and the consequences of a violation differ substantially." (Id. at p. 1020, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861.)

In Walker, both types of error were present. First, the trial court advised the defendant only that a $10,000 fine was "a possible consequence" when it "should have advised defendant there was a possible $10,000 penalty fine and a mandatory restitution fine of between $100 and 10,000." (Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1029, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861, italics added.)⁵ Second, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $5,000 that had not been mentioned in the parties' plea bargain. (Walker, at p. 1019, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861.) Under the circumstances, we held that imposition of the restitution fine constituted "a significant deviation from the negotiated terms of the plea bargain. Since the court did not give the section 1192.5 admonition [relating to the defendant's right to withdraw the plea], and this was not merely a failure to advise of the consequences of the plea, defendant cannot be deemed to have waived his rights by silent acquiescence. Nor did he waive them expressly. As harmless error analysis is not applicable, defendant is entitled to a remedy." (Id. at pp. 1029-1030, 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861.)

...