People v. Kim
193 Cal. App. 4th 1355
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Kim and two co-defendants pled guilty to avoid the death penalty in a package deal with a life without possibility of parole for Kim.
- At sentencing, the court imposed life without parole plus additional terms: life with possibility of parole, 400 years to life, and 29 years eight months, all consecutive.
- The court did not indicate whether it was following the plea terms or deviating from them, and did not offer Kim an opportunity to withdraw the plea.
- The prosecution urged a harsher sentence than the agreed terms, while the defense argued that the sentence violated the plea and amounted to cruel and unusual punishment.
- The issue presented is whether the sentence violated the plea agreement and what remedy should apply, given the court’s departure from the bargain.
- The court ultimately remands, noting potential remedies include remand to permit withdrawal, or specific/substantial performance, but rejects direct modification to satisfy the exact bargain due to statutory constraints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the sentence violate the plea agreement? | Kim contends a significant deviation from the agreed sentence. | State concedes the deviation from the agreed sentence was significant. | Yes; the sentence significantly deviated from the plea agreement. |
| What remedy is appropriate for an unauthorized sentence? | Remand with opportunity to withdraw plea or specific performance. | Remand with options but no permissible specific performance to achieve exact terms. | Remand with opportunity to withdraw or proceed with a moot plea, consistent with statutory limits. |
| Can the court impose concurrent vs. consecutive terms to satisfy the bargain? | Specific performance could modify terms to run concurrently. | Concurrence adjustment may be inappropriate given mandatory enhancements and statutory constraints. | Cannot order specific performance to alter mandatory enhancements; remand needed to decide. |
| Is substantial specific performance available here? | Altering some terms while keeping others could suffice. | Such modification would still be a deviation and not permissible. | Not available; substantial specific performance not appropriate. |
| Should the prosecution be allowed to amend the indictment on remand? | Prosecution may amend to omit mandatory enhancements. | Remand should preserve defendant’s rights regardless of prosecution motion. | Remand to entertain a prosecution motion to amend the indictment; if denied or not made, offer withdrawal. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Cal. 1991) (plea bargains bound by contract principles; punishment may not significantly exceed agreed terms)
- People v. Mancheno, 32 Cal.3d 855 (Cal. 1982) (court’s non-binding initial approval; can withdraw when more information emerges)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (Cal. 2008) (court may accept or reject plea; cannot modify terms after judgment without opportunity to rescind)
- People v. Velasquez, 69 Cal.App.4th 503 (Cal. App. 1999) (illustrates the risk of sentencing a defendant to an unachievable number of years)
- People v. Brown, 147 Cal.App.4th 1213 (Cal. 2007) (significant deviation required for relief in plea bargain context)
- People v. Shabazz, 38 Cal.4th 55 (Cal. 2006) (recognizes practical effects of different life-related sentences)