People v. Jeffrey H.
196 Cal. App. 4th 1052
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- In spring 2010, the Orange County DA filed three petitions under Welf. & Inst. Code § 602 against Jeffrey H. to declare him a ward; two petitions charged possession for sale and related offenses, and a third charged one count of second degree robbery.
- During delay-filled proceedings, the court ultimately amended the third petition on June 9 by dismissing the robbery count and adding a grand theft count (designated as count 2) as part of a plea agreement, with Jeffrey admitting the amended count and being placed on probation.
- The prosecutor objected, arguing the court had no authority to substitute the People in plea negotiations and to amend the petition over objection.
- The People filed a notice of appeal challenging the order amending the petition, arguing it dismissed a charge and added a new one over objection and that the plea was illegal.
- The court’s actions raised three central issues: (i) authority to amend the petition, (ii) the propriety of appealing from an order underlying probation, and (iii) whether the court improperly negotiated a plea over prosecutorial objection.
- The appellate court held the petition amendment void, reversed the amendment order, reinstated the original robbery count, deleted the grand theft count, and allowed Jeffrey to withdraw the admission to the charges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court exceed its authority in amending the petition over objection? | People contend the court usurped charging authority and negotiated a plea unlawfully. | Jeffrey argued the procedural issue should be resolved without infringing on probational disposition; not directly disputing the amendment. | Yes; the court exceeded its authority and the amendment must be reversed. |
| Is the People’s appeal cognizable under § 800(b)(4) despite probation, based on Douglas? | People rely on § 800(b)(4) to challenge dismissal/addition and seek reinstatement. | Jeffrey argues § 800(c) bars appeals that target probation orders. | Yes; the appeal is cognizable under § 800(b)(4) per Douglas. |
| Does the appeal target an order underlying probation in a way barred by § 800(c)? | People assert they challenge the amendment order, not the probation grant per se. | Jeffrey relies on § 800(c) to argue the appeal is improper when it targets probation. | No; the appeal is not barred by § 800(c); it challenges the amendment order itself. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Douglas, 20 Cal.4th 85 (Cal. 1999) (prohibition on reviewing probation orders via appeal and scope of review via writ)
- In re Rottanak K., 37 Cal.App.4th 260 (Cal. App. 1995) (appealability of orders terminating part of an action under § 800)
- Do Kyung K., 88 Cal.App.4th 583 (Cal. App. 2001) (similar interpretation of parallel provisions under Penal Code § 1238)
- People v. Allan, 49 Cal.App.4th 1507 (Cal. App. 1996) (trial court’s overstepping in dismissing charges to facilitate a plea objection)
- People v. Orin, 13 Cal.3d 937 (Cal. 1975) (trial court cannot substitute itself for prosecutor in plea negotiations)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2008) (limits on trial courts in plea bargaining when contested by People)
- Alice v. People, 41 Cal.4th 668 (Cal. 2007) (People may appeal certain dismissal rulings but not probation orders themselves)
- Ludwig (People v. Ludwig), 174 Cal.App.3d 473 (Cal. App. 1985) (court’s failure to obtain prosecutor’s consent to plea agreement renders it illegal)