People v. Ramos, Cr. 5024

• Decision Date: 16 June 1972
• Docket Number: Cr. 5024
• Citation: 102 Cal.Rptr. 502,26 Cal.App.3d 108
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ramon RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant.

Page 502

102 Cal.Rptr. 502

26 Cal.App.3d 108

The PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Ramon RAMOS, Defendant and Appellant.

Cr. 5024.

Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Division 1, California.

June 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied June 30, 1972.

Hearing Denied Aug. 9, 1972.

[26 Cal.App.3d 109] Norbert Enrenfreund, San Diego, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.

Evelle J. Younger, Atty. Gen., Herbert L. Ashby, Chief Asst. Atty. Gen., William E. James, Asst. Atty. Gen., Mark L. Christiansen and Derald E. Granberg, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.

OPINION

GERALD BROWN, Presiding Justice.

Defendant Ramon Ramos appeals one judgment (order granting probation) and denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 (Cr--23862); and three judgments in which probation was revoked (CR--8424, CR--14336 and CR--20248).

Ramos and the district attorney made a bargain, stated on a form and approved by the court, in which Ramos pleaded guilty to possessing dangerous drugs; seven other counts were dismissed; and five prior convictions were struck. Ramos was to be credited with time already served, and was to serve no additional time on the principal charge. The court granted probation on the principal charge, but revoked probation on three of the five priors which had been struck. Ramos appeals all four cases. We reverse the four judgments on the ground the court did not follow the bargain; we affirm the denial of Ramos' motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.

When the plea was entered, the court told Ramos, in accord with Penal Code section 1192.5, he had the right to withdraw his plea if the court chose not to follow the plea bargain.

At the sentencing hearing, the probation department recommended probation in the present case and continuation of probation in the three others. Ramos told the court he understood the plea bargain applied to all his cases. The court said the agreement did not say anything about the revocation matters, and it would not have accepted a plea binding on the prior cases. Proceedings were suspended under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051.

When the hearing resumed, the deputy district attorney said he concurred in the probation department's recommendations, and specifically with the recommendation not to revoke probation in the three prior cases. After Ramos moved to withdraw the plea because the court indicated it would revoke probation, the court said the form contained the entire plea bargain and there was nothing on it binding the court as to the priors. Ramos argued the agreement covered all his cases, the principal one and the priors; he had pleaded guilty with the understanding he would receive probation on all charges. The court rejected this argument, granted probation on the present case, and sentenced Ramos to state prison for the term prescribed by law on the priors, time to run concurrently.

If a defendant pleads guilty as part of a bargain with an apparently authoritative and reliable public official and is assured of receiving in return some special consideration, the court may not impose judgment contrary to the bargain without giving the defendant an opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea. (People v. Delles, 69 Cal.2d 906, 910, 73 Cal.Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629.)

While the court granted probation on the charge to which Ramos pleaded guilty, giving him no additional time, the fact remains the court sentenced Ramos to state prison despite Ramos' explanation he understood the agreement applied to the priors, and despite the deputy district attorney's statement he concurred in the probation department's recommendations of continuing Ramos' probation on the priors. Furthermore, the court did not tell Ramos before he entered the guilty plea his probation on the prior charges might be revoked, and he might be sentenced on them.

Under the facts of this case it is reasonable the agreement striking the priors meant there would be no penalty imposed because of them. Ramos would have had little to gain by entering the guilty plea if he were to end up in state prison anyway. In addition, having granted probation in the principal case, the court could immediately revoke it (Pen.Code § 1203.2(a)). Because the court did not sentence Ramos in accord with the plea bargain, Ramos must be permitted to withdraw that plea. (People v. Delles, supra, 69 Cal.2d 906, 910, 73 Cal.Rptr. 389, 447 P.2d 629; Pen.Code § 1192.5; Cf. People v. Flores...