People v. Jackson

California Court of Appeal Mar 21, 1980 No. Crim. 11295Published

Before: Wiener

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the sentencing court did not unilaterally modify the plea bargain, but rather enforced a condition of the agreement that the defendant failed to meet. Furthermore, the court found no abuse of discretion in the trial court's imposition of the upper term sentence.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated the defendant's right to withdraw his guilty plea under People v. Johnson and Penal Code section 1192.5.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing the defendant to the upper term.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The express agreement required a misdemeanor sentence only upon the condition of defendant having a clean record. If that condition were not met, neither the bargain nor the statute gave defendant the right to withdraw his plea.”

“Unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise, the relevant criteria enumerated in the sentencing rules (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 401 et seq.) is deemed to have been considered by the sentencing judge (rule 409).”

Opinion

WIENER, J.

Defendant appeals his conviction of second degree burglary (Pen. Code, § 459. All references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise cited.) He asserts there were errors in reference to the taking of his plea and with sentencing. We reject both his arguments and affirm the judgment.

Factual and Procedural Background

Defendant was charged under the name of Willie Jackson with two counts of entering a locked vehicle with intent to commit theft in violation of section 459. On December 29, 1978, he changed his plea to guilty on count one. The offense was fixed as burglary in the second degree and count two was dismissed. The “Change of Plea (Guilty)” form stated his plea bargain was: “People will move to dismiss count 2. People will not oppose reduction to a misdemeanor at time of sentencing if no prior record. Six months maximum.” When the plea was taken, the court proceeded through the required litany and with extreme care specifically explained to the defendant the proposed sentence was conditioned on his having no prior record. The defendant said he understood this. Defendant appeared for sentencing on March 9, 1979. The probation report revealed he had a prior record consisting of two 1974 convictions of petty theft, possession of narcotics in 1975 with a commitment to California Rehabilitation Center (CRC), followed by an exclusion from CRC and a sentence to prison to be concurrent with a prison sentence for second degree burglary in 1977. Also shown was a 1975 federal charge of possession of stolen mail and forgery of a government check for which he received six months in custody. At the time of sentencing, defendant stated his true name to be William J. Watson.

At the time of sentencing, because of defendant’s record, the court ruled the plea would stand, but the six-month sentence would not. Pro

[638]

bation was denied. Defendant was sentenced for the upper term of three years.

Defendant Was Sentenced According to the Plea Bargain

Defendant’s argument that

People v. Jackson

AI Brief

WIENER, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief