People v. Tucker

Opinion

ELKINGTON, Acting P. J.

Defendant Walter Eveleth Tucker (Tucker), by bargained-for pleas of nolo contendere,

*

was convicted of three counts of oral copulation and lewd and lascivious acts upon his two- and four-year-old daughters. A condition of the pleas was that he receive a sentence of

not more

than 10 years. Such an agreed sentence, we opine, is tantamount to an agreement, or stipulation, that a

10-year

prison term was within the range of reasonableness for the crimes Tucker had committed.

[297]

The trial court thereafter fixed Tucker’s prison term at a total of eight years.

The appeal is from the judgment entered upon the nolo contendere pleas.

We shall affirm the judgment for the following reasons.

Tucker first

contends

that: “Appellant’s case must be remanded for resentencing, for the trial court erred by failing to state [the statutorily required] reasons for imposition of a consecutive sentence on Count III.”

The manifest purpose of a statement of reasons in sentencing is to assure that terms of imprisonment are reasonable. We find it impossible, intellectually, to conclude that such an agreed reasonable term is nevertheless unreasonable for failure of the trial court to state its reasons. Sentencing statutes and rules of court must be construed in the light of their manifest purpose. “Statutes should be construed so as to be given a reasonable result consistent with the legislative purpose.”

(Cossack

v.

City of Los Angeles

(1974) 11 Cal.3d 726, 732-733 [114 Cal.Rptr. 460, 523 P.2d 260].) And: “As the People are held strictly to the terms of the plea bargain, the accused also must be held to his agreement.”