People v. Johnson
Decision Date | 21 January 1977 |
Docket Number | Cr. 8358 |
Citation | 66 Cal.App.3d 197,135 Cal.Rptr. 756 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. James Timothy JOHNSON, Defendant and Appellant. |
Appellate Defenders, Inc. by Elaine A. Alexander, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Jack R. Winkler, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., Daniel J. Kremer, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Harley D. Mayfield, Deputy Atty. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
As a result of a plea bargain, James Timothy Johnson pled guilty to first degree murder (Pen.Code § 187). The court dismissed the allegation he used a firearm (Pen.Code § 12022.5) and the robbery count which also alleged he used a firearm, and sentenced him to prison for the law's prescribed term. Johnson appeals the judgment.
Johnson killed a man by shooting him during a robbery.
Johnson claims the trial court did not tell him the full consequences of his plea in that it failed to tell him the minimum sentence and the term he would have to serve before being eligible for parole.
For a plea of guilty to stand there must be in the record a direct and express waiver by the defendant of three Constitutional rights: the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses against him, and the right not to incriminate himself (In re Tahl, 1 Cal.3d 122, 132, 81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449). In addition the record must reflect that the defendant has been 'advised of the direct consequences of conviction such as the permissible range of punishment provided by the statute.' Are the minimum time to be served and the minimum time for parole direct consequences of the plea?
In People v. Tabucchi, 64 Cal.App.3d 133, 143, 134 Cal.Rptr. 245, 251, the Court said:
(People v. Tabucchi, 64 Cal.App.3d 133, 143, 134 Cal.Rptr. 245, 251.)
In Tabucchi, the defendant faced a term of five years to life and in making his plea bargain he thought under Penal Code section 3049 he would be eligible for parole in less than two years rather than the three years required by Health and Safety Code section 11379.
The maximum and minimum sentences for first degree murder are the same, life imprisonment. Johnson could not have thought he would be eligible for parole after one third of the sentence had passed because the precise computation cannot be made until he dies. Here, before taking the plea the court asked Johnson if he knew the maximum term for first degree murder. Johnson replied 'life imprisonment.' He was...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Huynh
...question, "Are the minimum time to be served and the minimum time for parole direct consequences of the plea?" (People v. Johnson (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 197, 199, 135 Cal.Rptr. 756.) Unfortunately, that opinion does not answer the question. Instead it concluded the defendant was not prejudice......
-
Carabes, In re
...life, any earlier release by way of parole is not an adverse consequence but a benefit to the prisoner. (See People v. Johnson (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 197, 200, 135 Cal.Rptr. 756.) However, it is unrealistic to assume petitioner will serve a life term or a substantial part of the life term bey......
-
208 Cal.App.3d 1531J, People v. Hellgren
...was willing to accept--could only have made the plea seem more attractive. There was no prejudice. (Cf. People v. Johnson (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 197, 200, 135 Cal.Rptr. 756 [defendant willing to accept a plea knowing of a possible life sentence was not prejudiced by failure to advise of the p......
-
People v. Rice
...defendant alleges was omitted would not have made the plea bargain more attractive or favorable to him. (See also People v. Johnson (1977) 66 Cal.App.3d 197, 200 [since defendant accepted possibility of a life term, he could not have been prejudiced by not being informed that he might becom......