Martin

People v. Martin

Bad Law
119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 99·2010 Cal. LEXIS 13374·51 Cal. 4th 75·244 P.3d 496
Supreme Court of CaliforniaDecember 30, 2010No. S175356California2,632 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Kennard, J.

Many criminal matters are resolved not by trial but by plea agreements between the prosecution and the defendant. Typically, a plea agreement allows the defendant to plead guilty to one or more charges in exchange for dismissal of one or more other charges.

Implicit in the plea agreement, which is in the nature of a contract, is the understanding that the trial court cannot use the facts of a dismissed charge to impose “adverse sentencing consequences” unless the defendant consents or a transactional relationship exists between the admitted charge and the dismissed charge. (People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754, 758 [ 159 Cal.Rptr. 696 , 602 P.2d 396 ] (Harvey).) In Harvey , the trial court imposed an increased prison term based on the facts of a dismissed charge. At issue here is whether Harvey applies to the imposition of probation conditions based on the facts of a dismissed charge. The Court of Appeal construed Harvey as limited to the imposition of prison sentences. It expressly disagreed with the Court of Appeal in People v. Beagle (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 415 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 757 ] (Beagle), which construed Harvey as applying also to the imposition of probation…

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.