People v. Superior Court (Ramos)

Good Law
1 Cal. Rptr. 2d 333·1991 Cal. App. LEXIS 1279·235 Cal. App. 3d 1261·91 Daily Journal DAR 13703·91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8886
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 5, 1991Docket Nos. B058610, B058606California3,351 words

Opinion

Opinion

Yegan, J.

—In these consolidated cases, we decide the issue of whether a trial court may lawfully give a statutorily classified “career criminal” an “indicated sentence.” We hold that the statutory scheme governing the prosecution of “career criminals,” Penal Code section 999b et seq., does not prohibit a trial court from indicating the sentence it will impose if a given set of facts is confirmed and the accused enters a guilty plea to all pending charges and admits all special allegations. As we shall explain, in both of these cases, each superior court judge thoroughly familiarized himself with the nature of the offense and the offender and indicated what an appropriate disposition would be, with or without a trial. At the outset we emphasize that Proposition 8’s limitation on “plea bargaining” (§ 1192.7) has no application here.

Ramos

Joel Ramos was charged with automobile burglary (§ 459) and petty theft with a prior (§ 666) with the allegation that he was not eligible for probation. (§ 1203, subd. (e)(1).) At a pretrial conference before the Honorable Steven Z. Perren, the court said: “Okay. This is a case in which, I understand it correctly, the defendant is accused of an…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.