People v. Hopson

California Court of Appeal Feb 8, 1993 No. D015315Published

Before: Benke

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. A plea bargain limiting the initial sentence does not restrict the trial court's discretion to impose a different sentence upon a subsequent revocation of probation. The court rejected the prior holding in People v. Alkire, finding that a plea bargain does not insulate a defendant from the consequences of future misconduct.

Issues

Whether a plea bargain limiting the initial sentence restricts the court's sentencing discretion upon a subsequent probation revocation.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“A consummated plea bargain is not a perpetual license to a defendant to violate his probation. The plea bargain does not insulate a defendant from the consequences of his future misconduct.”

“When Hopson violated the terms of probation, there was no agreement limiting the court’s discretion to impose sentence.”

Opinion

BENKE, Acting P. J.

Shannon Hopson appeals a judgment on his two convictions of taking or driving a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851).

In CR94974 in March 1988 Hopson was found in a stolen Datsun. In CR97210 on July 17, 1988, he was driving a stolen Toyota with a switched vehicle identification number. Hopson entered negotiated guilty pleas in both cases conditioned on being “sentenced to no more than the middle term of two years in state prison, the [Penal Code section] 12022 [charge] will be stricken, and any custody imposed in this case and any custody imposed in CR94974 will not exceed the two-year period and will be concurrent.” The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Hopson on three years’ probation. On July 11, 1991, the court revoked probation. It sentenced Hopson to serve the upper term of three years in CR94974 with a consecutive eight months (one-third the middle term) in CR97210. Hopson contends the sentence violated the plea bargain.

We find

People

Turner

(1975) 44 Cal.App.3d 753 [118 Cal.Rptr. 924] controlling. In

Turner,

a condition of the plea bargain was local time. Upon violation of probation, the court sentenced the defendant to prison. The argument made here was rejected:

“[A]fter the violation occurred, there was no plea bargain involved because the bargain contemplated the initial sentencing proceeding only. It was

[3]

within the discretion of the trial court to look at the situation anew, to continue or revoke probation, to commit [defendant] to the Youth Authority, a local or state institution. There was no abuse of discretion.”

(Id.

at p. 757.)

We recognize our divided panel opinion in

People

People v. Hopson

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief