People v. Clancey
56 Cal. 4th 562
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Defendant Wesley Clancey pleaded no contest to charges in two Santa Clara cases on August 19, 2010, admitting a prior strike and an on-bail enhancement.
- The trial court sentenced him to five years, dismissing the on-bail enhancement and the strike allegations under § 1385.
- The Court of Appeal divided, reversing and vacating the pleas, holding the five-year disposition was an unlawful judicial plea bargain.
- The record contained off-record discussions and an explicit on-record statement that the court would strike the strike and sentence to five years, raising ambiguity about whether the indicated sentence reflected best judgment or plea inducement.
- The trial court described the Early Resolution Calendar process and its informed offer, indicating the sentence after considering the case history and probation information, with the possibility to set aside the offer if new information emerged.
- On appeal, the court concluded the record did not clearly show that the indicated sentence was the court’s best judgment independent of pleas, remanding to clarify and, if reinstated, recalculate presentence credits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the trial court's five-year sentence a lawful indicated sentence or an unlawful plea bargain? | People contended it was an unlawful judicial bargain indelibly tied to the plea. | Clancey contends it was a lawful indicated sentence, not contingent on the plea. | Ambiguity; remand to determine whether the indicated sentence reflected best judgment independent of plea. |
| May an indicated sentence contemplate dismissal of 1385 dismissals (on-bail and strike) under 1385? | Woosley prohibits indicatives that presuppose dismissal by 1385 as improper intrusion on charging authority. | Indicated sentences may include 1385 dismissals as part of sentencing discretion. | Indicated sentence may contemplate 1385 dismissals; not per se improper. |
| May an indicated sentence contemplate dismissal of a prior strike under the Three Strikes law? | Three Strikes proscribed bargaining away prior serious/violent convictions. | Court may exercise its discretion to dismiss a prior conviction in the interests of justice under 1385. | Three Strikes does not bar indicated sentences that involve dismissing a strike allegation under 1385. |
| If the indicated sentence is not imposed, may the defendant withdraw the plea? | People argued for withdrawal under appropriate grounds; Felmann contemplated conditional withdrawal. | Withdrawal should be addressed by standard withdrawal standards unless the court clarifies the indicated sentence. | Remand to rehear and reconsider; withdrawal issue unresolved pending clarification. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Orin, 13 Cal.3d 937 (1975) (court may not substitute itself in plea negotiations; consent of prosecutor required)
- People v. Turner, 34 Cal.4th 406 (2004) (indicated sentence may be used where guilt is admitted or proven; reflects sentencing discretion)
- People v. Felmann, 59 Cal.App.3d 270 (1976) (indicated sentence procedure; withdrawal option discussed)
- People v. Labora, 190 Cal.App.4th 907 (2010) (indicated sentence not a plea bargain; limits on bargaining over sentence)
- People v. Woosley, 184 Cal.App.4th 1136 (2010) (invalidated indicated sentence premised on 1385 dismissal as improper)
- People v. Romero, 13 Cal.4th 487 (1996) (discussed dismissal in furtherance of justice under 1385 and sentencing discretion)
- People v. Allan, 49 Cal.App.4th 1507 (1996) (indicated sentence and prior bad acts; ties to three-strikes considerations)
- People v. Lara, 54 Cal.4th 896 (2012) (presentence credits; accelerated credits distinction under 4019 clarified)