People v. Perozzi CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion when, pursuant to the Tehama County Superior Court rule barring plea bargains after three pretrial conferences, it refused to permit him to accept the People’s offer that he plead to count I as a misdemeanor. Defendant reasons that since the rule is not part of the written local rules of the Tehama County Superior Court, but is “merely a rule amongst the Tehama County judges, . . . the judges should have the discretion to change their procedures.”5 We reject this argument.

“[T]here is no constitutional right to a plea bargain” (People v. Trejo (2011) 199 Cal.App.4th 646, 655), and the courts have upheld limiting the time for plea negotiation to take place. In People v. Cobb (1983) 139 Cal.App.3d 578, the court upheld a rule prohibiting plea bargaining after a trial setting conference and required that any pleas made after that time be “ ‘straight up’ ” pleas, i.e., admissions to all the charges. (Id. at p. 581.)

In the present case, the court’s minutes for May 13, 2013, show that a jury trial was confirmed to begin on June 6, 2013, and that defendant was given notice “there will

5 Neither party has made Tehama…