People v. Villalobos
54 Cal. 4th 177
| Cal. | 2012Background
- Defendant Ramiro Villalobos was charged with attempted premeditated murder, second-degree robbery, and related enhancements; he pled no contest to attempted murder with a gang enhancement and to robbery in exchange for a 17-year term and dismissal of other charges.
- The plea colloquy referenced restitution generally but did not specify any restitution fines; the court did not advise on restitution fines during the plea.
- At sentencing, the court imposed a $4,000 restitution fine under §1202.4 and a $4,000 parole revocation fine under §1202.45, with the latter suspended.
- Defendant did not object to the fines at sentencing; victim restitution remained open for future expenses.
- On appeal, the Court of Appeal affirmed, treating the fines as statutorily mandated and within court discretion absent express terms in the plea; the Supreme Court granted review to resolve the issue.
- The court ultimately held that, where the fine amount was not negotiated or discussed in the plea or colloquy, the fines are within the trial court’s discretion and do not violate the plea bargain.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a restitution fine not mentioned in the plea or colloquy violates the plea bargain. | Villalobos argues Walker requires strict adherence to negotiated terms; fines not discussed violated the bargain. | Villalobos contends silence cannot authorize substantial fines; Walker controls. | No; silence does not negate a statutorily mandated penalty; fine within statutory range may be imposed. |
| Whether failure to admonish about restitution fines during the plea colloquy waives review of the punishment. | Walker requires timely objection; the omission prevents relief. | Failure to advise is a separate error; does not bar relief if pact violated. | Waiver not applicable when the plea did not specify fines, and the fine amount was not part of the bargain. |
| Whether Walker overruled by Crandell, Moser, and McClellan to permit otherwise beyond statutory minimums. | Crandell/Moser/McClellan reduce dependence on Walker; allow imposing larger fines when it is not negotiated. | Walker remains consistent; statutorily mandated penalties can be imposed even if not negotiated. | Walker remains valid; a non-negotiated statutorily mandated penalty may still be within court discretion, but Walker’s core rule stands. |
| What is the appropriate remedy if a restitution fine is not negotiated and is imposed unnecessarily large? | Walker’s remedy to reduce to statutory minimum applies. | Fine may be set within statutory range irrespective of bargain terms. | Remedy is to respect statutory minimum if non-negotiated; but the opinion emphasizes preferred practice to avoid such disputes. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Cal. 1991) (restitution fines not mentioned in plea bargain; remedy limited to statutory minimums when substantial deviation occurs)
- People v. Crandell, 40 Cal.4th 1301 (Cal. 2007) (core question: whether restitution fine was negotiated or left to court; advised up to $10,000 range matter of discretion)
- In re Moser, 6 Cal.4th 342 (Cal. 1993) (parole term may be statutorily mandated; not necessarily part of plea bargain; remand to determine negotiations)
- People v. McClellan, 6 Cal.4th 367 (Cal. 1993) (sex offender registration is statutorily mandated; not subject of plea bargain; its imposition does not violate bargain)
- People v. Soria, 48 Cal.4th 58 (Cal. 2010) (parties may negotiate restitution amount within statutory range; silence may leave fine to court)