People v. Santos

Opinion

BEACH, J.

Defendant appeals from a sentence imposed following a negotiated plea. Affirmed.

Background:

On August 31, 1981, pursuant to a court-approved plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496) in return for dismissal of a burglary charge and a grant of probation. The probation and sentencing hearing was set for October 30, 1981. Defendant, however, failed to appear and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Almost three years later, on July 2, 1984, defendant was arrested on the bench warrant. At the probation and sentencing hearing held on July 28, 1984, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to state prison for the middle term of two years. This appeal by defendant followed.

Defendant’s Contentions:

Defendant contends (1) the trial court should have either sentenced him pursuant to the plea bargain or allowed him to withdraw the plea bargain, and (2) he should have been sentenced by the judge who was to sentence him following his guilty plea.

Discussion:

1.

Sentencing Pursuant to Plea Bargain

Defendant contends that since it was a condition of the plea bargain that he be placed on probation, the trial court violated the bargain when it sentenced him to state prison.

Plea bargaining is an accepted practice in our system of criminal justice.

(People

v.

Mancheno

(1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 859 [187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211];

People

v.

West

(1970) 3 Cal.3d 595, 604 [91 Cal.Rptr. 385,

477

P.2d 409].) Due process applies not only to the procedure of accepting the plea, but also to the implementation of the bargain itself.

(People