Mickens

People v. Mickens

Good Law
1995 Cal. App. LEXIS 981·38 Cal. App. 4th 1557·45 Cal. Rptr. 2d 633·95 Daily Journal DAR 13517·95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 7948
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 5, 1995H013406California2,852 words

Opinion

Opinion

Elia, J.

When a defendant enters a conditional plea of guilty, what must a trial court do to comply with Penal Code section 1192.5? Is counsels’ stipulation to a factual basis for the plea sufficient? And if not, is the error harmless? These are the issues before us in this case.

Appellant Mickey Mickens appeals his conviction, contending that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. He argues it was taken in violation of Penal Code section 1192.5; that counsels’ stipulation to a factual basis was inadequate to comply with the statute, and that there was no adequate factual basis in the record. Respondent argues that counsels’ stipulation was sufficient, and that a factual basis for the plea existed in the record.

We conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in denying appellant’s motion to withdraw. While it would have been better for the court to have placed on the record the factual basis for the guilty plea, rather than accepting counsels’ stipulation, it appears that had counsel not stipulated, a factual basis for the plea could have been readily established. We therefore conclude any error was harmless. We will therefore affirm the judgment…

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.