People v. Santos
| Decision Date | 13 August 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. B006722,B006722 |
| Citation | 171 Cal.App.3d 67,216 Cal.Rptr. 911 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of California, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Lito Antonio SANTOS aka Dantes Perez, Defendant and Appellant. |
Linda J. Prosser, Claremont, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for defendant and appellant.
John K. Van de Kamp, Atty. Gen., Andrew D. Amerson and Susan D. Martynec, Deputy Attys. Gen., for plaintiff and respondent.
Defendant appeals from a sentence imposed following a negotiated plea. Affirmed.
BACKGROUND:
On August 31, 1981, pursuant to a court-approved plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496) in return for dismissal of a burglary charge and a grant of probation. The probation and sentencing hearing was set for October 30, 1981. Defendant, however, failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Almost three years later, on July 2, 1984, defendant was arrested on the bench warrant. At the probation and sentencing hearing held on July 28, 1984, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years. This appeal by defendant followed.
DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Defendant contends (1) the trial court should have either sentenced him pursuant to the plea bargain or allowed him to withdraw the plea bargain, and (2) he should have been sentenced by the judge who was to sentence him following his guilty plea.
DISCUSSION:
1. Sentencing Pursuant to Plea Bargain
Defendant contends that since it was a condition of the plea bargain that he be placed on probation, the trial court violated the bargain when it sentenced him to state prison.
Plea bargaining is an accepted practice in our system of criminal justice. (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 859, 187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211; People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 604, 91 Cal.Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409.) Due process applies not only to the procedure of accepting the plea, but also to the implementation of the bargain itself. (People v. Mancheno, supra, 32 Cal.3d at p. 860, 187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211.)
The purpose of providing a remedy for breach of the bargain is to redress the harm caused by the breach without prejudicing either party or curtailing the sentencing discretion of the trial judge. The remedy chosen will vary depending on the circumstances. Among the factors to be considered are who broke the bargain, whether the violation was deliberate or inadvertent, and whether circumstances have changed between entry of the plea and the time of sentencing. (Ibid.) The usual remedies for breach of a plea bargain are to allow a defendant to withdraw the plea and go to trial on the original charges, or to specifically enforce the plea bargain. Id., at pp. 860-861, 187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211.
A trial court must orally pronounce the judgment and impose sentence in the presence of the defendant. (People v. Prater (1977) 71 Cal.App.3d 695, 702, 139 Cal.Rptr. 566.) Thus the plea bargain in this case contemplated defendant's appearance at the probation and sentencing hearing set for October 30, 1981. By absconding after the guilty plea and failing to show up at that hearing, remaining at large for three years until his arrest on the bench warrant issued at the October 1981 sentencing hearing, defendant himself prevented implementation of the plea bargain. Having breached the bargain, defendant is not entitled to either specific enforcement of that bargain or withdrawal of his guilty plea. We conclude the trial court's imposition of a prison term was proper.
2. Defendant's Entitlement to Sentencing by Judge Rothman
In People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749, 756-757, 150 Cal.Rptr. 778, 587 P.2d 220, the state Supreme Court held that whenever a trial judge accepts a plea bargain and retains sentencing discretion under the agreement, an implied term of the bargain is that sentence will be imposed by that judge.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Cruz
...Cal.Rptr. 556, 519 P.2d 604.) The Court of Appeal in the instant case, however, relied on its own decision in People v. Santos (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 67, 70, 216 Cal.Rptr. 911 and held that by his failure to appear for sentencing defendant "breached the bargain ... [and] is not entitled to e......
-
K. R. v. Superior Court of Sacramento Cnty.
...502.) Still other courts cited the general rule but nonetheless engaged in an individualized analysis. (E.g., People v. Santos (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 67, 70–71, 216 Cal.Rptr. 911.)In 1989, the Fifth Appellate District—which was responsible for many of the decisions following the general rule......
-
State v. Whitehawk
...(concern expressed for "preserving the independence of the trial judge from the plea bargaining process"); People v. Santos, 171 Cal.App.3d 67, 216 Cal.Rptr. 911 (2 Dist.1985); State v. Hall, 32 Wash.App. 108, 645 P.2d 1143 (1982). It is therefore clearly not the prerogative of the trial co......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...recommended the aggravated term of imprisonment of three years. The district attorney, however, argued, citing to People v. Santos (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 67, 216 Cal.Rptr. 911, that defendant had violated the plea bargain by failing to appear, was not entitled to enforce the bargain and was ......