People v. Ramos

[110]

Opinion

BROWN (Gerald), P. J.

Defendant Ramon Ramos appeals one judgment (order granting probation) and denial of his motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5 (CR-23862); and three judgments in which probation was revoked (CR-8424, CR-14336 and CR-20248).

Ramos and the district attorney made a bargain, stated on a form and approved by the court, in which Ramos pleaded guilty to possessing dangerous drugs; seven other counts were dismissed; and five prior convictions were struck. Ramos was to be credited with time already served, and was to serve no additional time on the principal charge. The court granted probation on the principal charge, but revoked probation on three of the five priors which had been struck. Ramos appeals all four cases. We reverse the four judgments on the ground the court did not follow the bargain; we affirin the denial of Ramos’ motion to suppress evidence under Penal Code section 1538.5.

When the plea was entered, the court told Ramos, in accord with Penal Code section 1192.5, he had the right to withdraw his plea, if the court chose not to follow the .plea bargain.

At tire sentencing hearing, the probation department recommended probation in the present case and continuation of probation, in the three others. Ramos told the court he understood the plea bargain applied to all Iris cases. The court said the agreement did not say anything about the revocation matters, and it would not have accepted a plea binding on the prior cases. Proceedings were suspended under Welfare and Institutions Code section 3051.

When the hearing resumed, the deputy district attorney said he concurred in the probation department’s recommendations, and specifically with the recommendation not to revoke probation in the three prior cases. After Ramos moved to withdraw the plea because the court indicated it would revoke probation, the court said the form contained the entire plea bargain and there was nothing on it binding the court as to the priors. Ramos argued the agreement covered all his cases, the principal one and the priors; he had pleaded guilty with the understanding he would receive probation on all charges. The court rejected tins argument, granted probation on the present case, and sentenced Ramos to state prison for the term prescribed by law on the priors, time to run concurrently.