DeFilippis

People v. DeFilippis

Good Law
12 Cal. Rptr. 2d 431·1992 Cal. App. LEXIS 1200·9 Cal. App. 4th 1876·92 Daily Journal DAR 13825·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8441
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaOctober 7, 1992A056146California925 words

Opinion

Opinion

Acting, J.

In this case we hold that if a plea bargain does not specify punishment and the defendant is not advised of an obligatory restitution fine, the imposition of a restitution fine above the statutory minimum violates only the right to be advised as to the direct consequences of the plea, not the plea bargain itself, and thus the error is waived if not raised at or before sentencing.

An amended information charged Edward Charles DeFilippis with 15 counts of insurance fraud (Ins. Code, § 1871.1, subd. (a)(1), Ins. Code, former § 556 repealed in 1989) and one count of preventing or dissuading a witness from testifying by force or threat (Pen. Code, § 136.1, subd. (c)(1)). Pursuant to a plea bargain, DeFilippis pleaded no contest to four counts of insurance fraud. In exchange for the pleas, the remaining counts were dismissed.

The plea bargain did not specify any punishment. (See Pen. Code, § 1192.5.) Defense counsel merely stated his “understanding, though not a binding commitment” that DeFilippis would be sentenced concurrently on proceedings pending in another county, and his further “understanding the maximum for four counts is eight years” (i.e., assuming aggravated and…

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.