People v. Palmer
58 Cal. 4th 110
| Cal. | 2013Background
- Palmer pleaded no contest to a felony (MDMA for sale) under Health & Safety Code § 11378; count 2 (marijuana for sale) was dismissed.
- The plea proceeded after waivers of preliminary hearing and probation report; the court suspended sentence and granted three years’ probation with 270 days in county jail.
- Defense counsel stipulated to a factual basis for the plea without citing a specific document; the defendant testified he discussed the crime elements with counsel and was satisfied with counsel’s advice.
- The record shows the trial court conducted voir dire but the factual basis was based on counsel’s stipulation, not a referenced document.
- Palmer appealed after obtaining a certificate of probable cause, challenging whether the stipulation satisfied § 1192.5’s factual-basis requirement.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding that the stipulation could satisfy the factual-basis requirement and that the defense’s in-court acknowledgment supported the trial court’s finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bare counsel stipulation can satisfy § 1192.5 | People argues stipulation for factual basis is adequate. | Palmer contends counsel’s bare stipulation without facts or documents is insufficient. | Yes; a bare stipulation can satisfy § 1192.5 in an appropriate case |
| Whether appellate review of the factual-basis claim is cognizable | People contends waiver/estoppel apply; claim foreclosed. | Palmer argues the claim is cognizable on appeal despite defense stipulation. | Cognizable on appeal; not procedurally barred |
| Effect of waiver and estoppel on the factual-basis challenge | Waiver/estoppel prevent challenging the basis. | Palmer argues waiver/estoppel do not bar a § 1192.5 challenge here. | Waiver/estoppel do not bar review in this factual-basis context |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Holmes, 32 Cal.4th 432 (2004) (affirmed court may accept defense counsel stipulation to factual basis)
- People v. Hoffard, 10 Cal.4th 1170 (1995) (factual-basis inquiry protects voluntariness; cautions about plea risks)
- People v. Marlin, 124 Cal.App.4th 559 (2004) (discussed scope of factual-basis inquiry; held inapplicable where no document referenced)
- People v. Voit, 200 Cal.App.4th 1353 (2011) (on-record inquiry; distinction between procedural basis and guilt evidence)
- People v. Watts, 67 Cal.App.3d 173 (1977) (stated that a stipulation without documents may be insufficient)
- People v. Adams, 6 Cal.4th 570 (1993) (counsel may stipulate to factual/procedural matters; evidentiary effects)
- McGuire v. State, 1 Cal.App.4th 281 (1991) (defense counsel’s stipulation cited as satisfying factual basis in some view)
- Watts, 67 Cal.App.3d 173 (1977) (cited for requirement that stipulation may not suffice without documents)
- People v. Hoffard, 10 Cal.4th 1170 (1995) (protects against coerced or uninformed pleas; § 1192.5 purpose)
- Chadd, 28 Cal.3d 739 (1981) (plea consequences and defendant rights; personal plea requirements)