People v. Vega CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Forfeiture Doctrine and Failure to Provide Section 1192.5 Advisement

As an initial matter, the parties disagree whether defendant forfeited his claim by failing to object. They agree, however, that the trial court did not admonish defendant pursuant to section 1192.5 and that defendant did not object during the entry of his plea or at his sentencing hearing. “‘[B]efore taking a guilty plea the trial court must admonish the defendant of both the constitutional rights that are being waived and the direct consequences of the plea.’” (People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, 181 (Villalobos), quoting People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1022.) “[B]ecause ‘advisement as to the consequences of a plea is not constitutionally mandated,’ ‘the error is waived absent a timely objection.’” (Villalobos, supra, at p. 182, quoting Walker, supra, at pp. 1022, 1023.) However, due process requires “that ‘both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of [a plea] agreement’ and ‘[t]he punishment may not significantly exceed that which the parties agreed upon.’ [Citation.] A defendant forfeits a claim that his punishment exceeds the terms of a plea bargain when…