People v. Son CA3
C080110
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 4, 2016Background
- Defendant Brian Son pleaded guilty in a negotiated disposition to evading a peace officer, possession of methamphetamine for sale, and failure to appear, admitting prior prison terms and a felony while on release.
- The written plea agreement stipulated a nine-year four-month prison term to be imposed unless the trial court accepted defendant into the adult felony drug court (AFDC); acceptance into AFDC would trigger suspension of that sentence and grant of probation.
- At the plea hearing the court recited the agreement and asked defendant if he understood that whether he "got drug court" was solely up to the judge; defendant agreed. The parties did not expressly state the court’s discretionary refusal would be a term of the plea.
- A probation report recommended AFDC placement; the AFDC assessment indicated defendant was suitable and had been accepted.
- At sentencing the trial court rejected AFDC and probation, denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his pleas, and imposed the nine-year four-month prison term. Defendant appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court violated the plea agreement by imposing prison after defendant was accepted into AFDC | The prosecutor argued the court had reserved discretion and clarified at plea that acceptance in drug court was solely the judge’s decision | Son argued the plea was a stipulated disposition: acceptance into AFDC required suspension of the agreed sentence and grant of probation; the court could not unilaterally impose prison | Court held the plea did not clearly reserve judicial discretion to deny AFDC; ambiguity resolved for defendant — the court erred by imposing prison without allowing withdrawal of the plea |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (2008) (plea bargaining treated as contract; court bound by accepted plea terms)
- People v. Shelton, 37 Cal.4th 759 (2006) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles to effect mutual intent)
- People v. Johnson, 10 Cal.3d 868 (1974) (court must allow plea withdrawal if it disapproves or seeks to modify a negotiated disposition)
- People v. Jackson, 103 Cal.App.3d 635 (1980) (right to withdraw plea applies at entry and at sentencing when court alters bargain)
- People v. Kim, 193 Cal.App.4th 1355 (2011) (remedies when court imposes a sentence beyond agreed terms: withdrawal, specific performance, or substantial specific performance)
- People v. Kaanehe, 19 Cal.3d 1 (1977) (preferable remedy is permitting plea withdrawal to restore status quo)
- In re Timothy N., 216 Cal.App.4th 725 (2013) (ambiguities in plea terms are construed in favor of the defendant)