211 Cal. App. 4th 1091
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Armando Xique Nocelotl pleaded no contest to kidnapping under section 207, and the negotiated disposition conditioned probation on a favorable diagnostic report under section 1203.03.
- The report’s favorability hinges on the Director's designated agent’s recommendations; a favorable report yields probation with up to 360 days' custody, otherwise prison.
- The diagnostic study produced three documents: two psychologists recommended probation, institutional staff recommended prison, and the warden recommended prison.
- The trial court informed the parties that if the report were favorable, probation would be granted; if not, a five-year prison term would be imposed.
- Nocelotl moved to withdraw his plea after the diagnostic study, arguing defense counsel misled him about which report would determine the sentence, and that rejecting probation breached the bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abuse of discretion denying withdrawal of plea | Nocelotl contends counsel misled him about the report; withdrawal appropriate. | Court should exercise discretion based on §1018 standards and finality of plea. | No abuse; denial preserved valid bargain and discretion. |
| Was negotiated disposition violated by prison sentence given mixed recommendations | Inconsistent recommendations render report unfavorable to appellant. | Warden’s recommendation controls under §1203.03. | No violation; warden’s controlling recommendation determines report’s favorability. |
| Did counsel's misrepresentation vitiate the plea | Misrepresentation about sentence suffices to vitiate plea. | Such misrepresentation does not automatically vitiate plea absent corroborating state action. | No; misrepresentation insufficient to vitiate plea. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Weaver, 118 Cal.App.4th 131 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (genuine bargains and withdrawal standards)
- In re Nunez, 62 Cal.2d 234 (Cal. 1965) (coram nobis and counsel advice limitations)
- People v. Toth, 224 Cal.App.2d 130 (Cal. Ct. App. 1964) (advice from attorney not sufficient to vitiate plea)
- People v. Gilbert, 25 Cal.2d 422 (Cal. 1944) (misrepresentations by defense counsel generally do not vitiate plea)
- In re Cortez, 6 Cal.3d 78 (Cal. 1971) (due process and discretionary action in plea-related rulings)
- People v. Reeves, 64 Cal.2d 766 (Cal. 1966) (reliance on counsel’s statements and free will)
- People v. Breslin, 205 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2012) (prejudice showing for withdrawal of plea)
- People v. Tang, 54 Cal.App.4th 669 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (warden as agent affecting 1203.03 report)