People v. Flores

California Supreme Court Dec 14, 1971 No. Crim. 15577Published

Before: McComb

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A defendant who enters a guilty plea based on a specific understanding of the maximum sentence must receive the benefit of that bargain, precluding the imposition of an additional mandatory firearm penalty not disclosed during the plea process. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a request for narcotic addiction commitment proceedings given the defendant's extensive criminal history.

Issues

May a defendant be subjected to an additional five-year term under Penal Code section 12022.5 when it contradicts the terms of his plea bargain?
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's request for narcotic addiction commitment proceedings under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051?

Disposition. modified and affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we hold that in entering his plea defendant bargained with recognized authorities for a sentence of no more than imprisonment for five years to life and that he must be given the benefit of his plea bargain.”

“The judgment is modified by striking therefrom that portion which finds that defendant was armed within the meaning of section 12022.5 of the Penal Code.”

Opinion

McCOMB, J.

Defendant appeals from a judgment entered following a plea of guilty to armed robbery (Pen. Code, §§211, 213).

Facts:

By a fifteen-count indictment, defendant was accused of four counts of unlawful entry with intent to commit theft (Pen. Code, § 459), three counts of grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. 1), three counts of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. 1), one count of cultivating marijuana (Health !& Saf. Code, § 11530.1), one count of forcefully violating another’s personal liberty (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 237), one count of assault with a deadly weapon upon the person of a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (b)), one count of deterring police performance (Pen. Code, § 69), and one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211).

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the robbery count, which reads: “On or about December 20, 1969 [defendant] did feloniously rob a person of personal property, by means of force and fear, in violation of Penal Code section 211. And, it is further alleged that the defendant committed the above robbery while armed with a deadly weapon.”

Before accepting the plea, the trial court conducted a thorough examination, which went beyond the requirements of

In re Tahl,

1 Cal.3d 122 [81 Cal.Rptr. 577, 460 P.2d 449]. The district attorney had agreed to dismiss all remaining counts if defendant pleaded guilty to first degree robbery, and such counts were dismissed following acceptance of defendant’s plea.

[308]

After acceptance of the plea, the court asked defendant how the crime had been committed. He testified, “I walked into the store and pulled a [loaded .22 automatic] on this dude, and told him to give me all of his money.”

The trial court later entered judgment of conviction, with the following notation in the sentencing provisions thereof: “At the time of the commission of the offense, sections 3024 and 12022 of the Penal Code were inapplicable

but defendant was armed within the meaning of sections 1203 and 12022.5 of the Penal Code, and the weapon was of the type commonly known as a .22 calibre revolver.”

People v. Flores

AI Brief

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief