People v. Labora
190 Cal. App. 4th 907
| Cal. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Defendant Jose Luis Labora pled guilty on November 2, 2009 to forcible spousal rape (count 1), assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (count 2) with a dangerous weapon admission, making a criminal threat (count 3), and false imprisonment (count 4); plea conditioned on a six-year sentence.
- Trial court acknowledged a change-of-plea form indicating a plea to the court with six-year custody term and noted a prior misdemeanor domestic violence conviction; court stated its sentencing would be a mid-term six years for count 1 with others concurrent, not an agreement with the DA.
- Prosecutor objected at the plea and sentencing hearings, asserting this was judicial plea bargaining and that the indicated sentence differed from the previously discussed terms.
- Defense counsel argued the plea was not judicial plea bargaining and that the defendant simply accepted an indicated sentence.
- The court ultimately imposed a midterm of six years for count 1 with concurrent midterms on other counts, i.e., the sentence that Labora had conditioned his plea upon.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the People have standing to appeal under section 1238(a)(10). | People contend standing exists because the sentence was unlawful and affected by bargaining. | Labora argues the appeal is improper since the sentence was lawful. | People have standing to appeal; standing and unlawful-sentence challenge supported. |
| Whether judicial plea bargaining occurred. | People assert the court bargained with Labora to impose a favorable sentence. | Labora contends there was no judicial plea bargain; only an indicated sentence. | Judicial plea bargaining occurred; the court improperly indicated a sentence and aligned with defense expectations. |
| What remedy is appropriate where judicial plea bargaining occurred. | If improper, Labora should be held to the initial indicated sentence. | Specific performance is inappropriate because no People–defendant plea agreement existed; Labora should be allowed to withdraw plea. | Labora should be allowed to withdraw his plea; not entitled to specific performance of the initial indicated sentence. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Woosley, 184 Cal.App.4th 1136 (Cal.App. 2010) (defines plea bargaining and its limits; distinguishes sentence bargaining from charge bargaining)
- Turner v. Superior Court, 34 Cal.4th 406 (Cal. 2004) (prosecutor’s consent required; judicial plea bargaining over objection is improper)
- People v. Feyrer, 48 Cal.4th 426 (Cal. 2010) (specific performance not available absent negotiated plea agreement)
- People v. Delgado, 16 Cal.App.4th 551 (Cal. App. 1993) (restricts specific performance when no plea agreement exists)
- People v. Trausch, 36 Cal.App.4th 1239 (Cal. App. 1995) (appealability of unlawful sentence claim; scope of review)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (Cal. 2007) (standard of review and presumption of correctness; abuse of discretion in plea-related rulings)