Amin

Filed 6/23/

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

JOSEPH SEMIR MUTWAKIL AMIN,

Petitioner,

v. G050191

THE SUPERIOR COURT OF ORANGE (Super. Ct. No. 12HM10360)

COUNTY,

O P I N I ON

Respondent;

THE PEOPLE,

Real Party in Interest.

Original proceedings; petition for a writ of mandate to challenge an order of the Superior Court of Orange County, Brett London, Judge. Petition granted. Frank Ospino, Public Defender, Mark S. Brown, Assistant Public Defender, and Scott Van Camp, Deputy Public Defender, for Petitioner. No appearance for Respondent. Tony Rackauckas, District Attorney, and Matthew Lockhart, Deputy District Attorney, for Real Party in Interest. In this writ proceeding, we examine whether the People of the State of California, real party in interest, should be allowed to rescind a misdemeanor plea agreement under which they agreed not to pursue certain felony charges against petitioner Joseph Semir Mutwakil Amin. The People contend the agreement is voidable due to mistake of fact and for other reasons, but we…

In this writ proceeding, we examine whether the People of the State of California, real party in interest, should be allowed to rescind a misdemeanor plea agreement under which they agreed not to pursue certain felony charges against petitioner Joseph Semir Mutwakil Amin. The People contend the agreement is voidable due to mistake of fact and for other reasons, but we disagree and grant petitioner’s request to enforce the deal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On July 17, 2012, petitioner was at an Albertson’s grocery store in Irvine. He snuck up behind a woman in the frozen food aisle, reached under her dress *1396 with his cell phone and started videotaping. When the woman asked petitioner what he was doing, he said he was sorry and quickly departed. Although petitioner fled the scene, the store manager called the police and provided responding Irvine Police Officer T. Goodbrand with a surveillance DVD of the incident.

Upon watching the DVD, Goodbrand immediately recognized petitioner from a prior incident involving a woman who had been groped at a park near petitioner’s residence. Goodbrand went to petitioner’s residence and asked him about the Albertson’s…

Dissenting. — I respectfully dissent. I actually agree with most of what the majority says, but I draw different conclusions from the facts.

This is what happened. In a busy misdemeanor arraignment court, the prosecutor and defense lawyer agreed to the disposition of a case where defendant was using his cell phone to look up women’s skirts. The two lawyers agreed defendant would plead guilty in exchange for three years’ probation. While memorializing the agreement in a writing, the defense lawyer added an additional term, that defendant’s guilty plea would “resolve[] all incidents referenced in [the] police report, charged & uncharged.”

To a great extent, what happened next is a he said/she said situation. He is the defense lawyer and she is the prosecutor. She said she asked him what the additional term was about, and he told her the other incidents involved “similar stuff.” The prosecutor then perused the police report, which was actually four reports, found “similar stuff’ throughout the four reports and agreed to the additional term. Defendant pled guilty and the judge sentenced him according to the agreement.

What the prosecutor did not read in her perusal of the police…