Lytle

People v. Lytle

Good Law
10 Cal. App. 4th 1·12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 433·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1202·92 Daily Journal DAR 13903·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8440
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 8, 1992A056258California1,481 words

Opinion

Opinion

Haning, J.

Terryl James Lytle appeals his conviction by guilty plea to four counts of armed robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.) He contends the trial court violated his plea bargain by imposing a restitution fine without advising him it was mandatory. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

Since this appeal raises only a sentencing issue, a detailed recitation of facts is unnecessary. In September 1991, pursuant to a plea bargain, appellant pled guilty to four counts of armed robbery and admitted violating probation. As part of the plea bargain, appellant was promised that the sentence on his probation violation would run concurrently with the armed robbery sentence. Before entry of his plea the magistrate advised appellant he faced a maximum of eight years in prison, that the court might impose a fine up to $10,000, and “you also could be ordered to pay a restitution payment of no less than one hundred dollars, up to as much as ten thousand dollars.” When asked if he understood, appellant responded affirmatively. Appellant was not advised, as required by section 1192.5, that the court’s approval of the plea was not binding and that the sentencing court could withdraw its approval at…

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.