36 Cal.App.5th 168
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Shelly Elaine John was charged with multiple felonies and alleged prior serious/violent conviction; initially pleaded not guilty and later changed to not guilty by reason of insanity (NGI) and not guilty at various times.
- After competency proceedings under §§ 1368–1369, the case proceeded; the parties reached a plea agreement: defendant would plead guilty to all counts, admit the prior, receive a 14-year term, and stipulate she was insane when the offenses were committed so she would be placed in a state hospital for restoration.
- The trial court accepted the guilty pleas, the parties’ stipulation to insanity, adjudicated defendant NGI for practical purposes, and committed her to Patton State Hospital for up to 14 years instead of imposing a prison sentence.
- Five months into commitment, defendant moved under Penal Code § 1018 to withdraw her plea; the trial court denied the motion as untimely, apparently believing judgment had been entered.
- On appeal the People conceded, and the Court of Appeal agreed, that commitment to a state hospital is not a criminal sentence and judgment had not been entered, so the § 1018 motion was timely; the court nonetheless vacated the entire plea agreement as an unauthorized, illegal bargain and remanded for a new plea.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant's § 1018 motion to withdraw plea was timely | Judgment had been entered so motion untimely | No judgment had been entered because commitment is not a sentence; motion timely | Motion was timely — commitment is not entry of judgment; § 1018 applies before judgment |
| Whether commitment to state hospital constitutes a sentence/entry of judgment | Commitment functions as the operative disposition and forecloses withdrawal | Commitment is treatment in lieu of punishment and not a sentence or judgment | Commitment is not a sentence; it does not constitute entry of judgment for § 1018 purposes |
| Whether the plea bargain (guilty plea plus stipulation to insanity/commitment) was lawful | Plea agreement as presented should be enforced | A guilty plea cannot be combined with an NGI finding; the agreement was unauthorized | The plea bargain was illegal/unauthorized and void; trial court must vacate and return parties to status quo ante |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (judgment is rendered when court orally pronounces sentence)
- People v. Dobson, 161 Cal.App.4th 1422 (commitment after § 1026 insanity finding is for treatment, not punishment)
- People v. Massie, 19 Cal.4th 550 (an unlawful guilty plea is null)
- In re V.B., 141 Cal.App.4th 899 (trial court should refuse to approve illegal plea bargains)
- People v. Maultsby, 53 Cal.4th 296 (a guilty plea is a conclusive admission of guilt)
- People v. Morgan, 9 Cal.App.2d 612 (a guilty plea admits the defendant's sanity at time of offense)
- People v. Soriano, 4 Cal.App.4th 781 (trial court should withhold approval of unlawful plea bargains)