237 Cal. App. 4th 1392
Cal. Ct. App.2015Background
- Defendant Joseph Amin secretly videotaped under a woman’s dress at an Albertson’s; police seized his phone and found multiple "up-skirt" videos, including other incidents and references to an investigation involving two 12‑year‑old girls.
- Amin pleaded guilty to two misdemeanors in exchange for three years’ probation, lifetime registration, counseling, and an express written term that the plea would “resolve[] all incidents referenced in [the] police report, charged & uncharged.”
- At the misdemeanor arraignment, prosecutor Tina Patel perused (but did not fully read) the consolidated police file; defense counsel Gurwitz added the broad ‘‘resolve all incidents’’ term and testified he described the other incidents as “similar stuff.”
- After sentencing, the DA filed felony charges for forcible lewd acts on two 12‑year‑olds based on material in a supplemental police report; the People sought to rescind the misdemeanor plea agreement to pursue the felonies.
- Trial courts granted rescission based on mistake of fact/unconscionability; the appellate writ court (majority) reversed, holding the People bore the risk of Patel’s limited knowledge and must be held to the plea; dissent would allow rescission/severance as unconscionable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Amin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plea may be rescinded for unilateral mistake of fact | Patel mistakenly believed the police report referenced only misdemeanor up‑skirt incidents; mistake voids bargain | People had full ability to discover the felony reference before agreeing; prosecution bears the risk of its limited knowledge | Plea not rescindable — prosecutor bore risk by acting with limited knowledge (Section 154/Donovan) |
| Whether fraud/lack of consent by defense counsel invalidates plea | Gurwitz misled Patel about report contents so consent lacking | Trial factfinder rejected fraud; no evidence Gurwitz deceived prosecutor | Fraud/lack of consent not shown; cannot void plea on that basis |
| Whether the term "police report" was ambiguous as to included reports | Term should not be read to include supplemental reports that reference unrelated felonies | Both parties understood ‘‘police report’’ to include the consolidated and supplemental reports in the file; term was unambiguous as used | Term unambiguous in context; includes the supplemental reports |
| Whether enforcing the plea violates public policy (children’s interest, prosecutorial duty) | Public policy favors prosecuting felony child molestation despite plea language | Finality and integrity of plea bargaining require courts to hold the People to their promises | Public‑policy concerns insufficient to override clear plea terms; plea enforcement favored |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor must honor plea promises; plea bargains essential to criminal justice)
- Donovan v. RRL Corp., 26 Cal.4th 261 (2001) (elements for rescission based on unilateral mistake, and Restatement §154 risk allocation)
- People v. Mancheno, 32 Cal.3d 855 (1982) (state must keep plea‑bargain promises; integrity of process)
- U.S. v. Partida‑Parra, 859 F.2d 629 (9th Cir. 1988) (prosecutor’s unilateral mistake is generally not a basis to void plea agreements)
- U.S. v. Fagan, 996 F.2d 1009 (9th Cir. 1993) (prosecutor’s later factual discovery does not nullify plea agreement)
- Ex parte Johnson, 669 So.2d 205 (Ala. 1995) (prosecutor’s negligence in plea negotiations does not justify rescission)