Ruhl

People v. Ruhl

Good Law
168 Cal. App. 3d 311·1985 Cal. App. LEXIS 2096·214 Cal. Rptr. 93
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 16, 1985Crim. No. 13213California2,459 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

In People v. Arbuckle (1978) 22 Cal.3d 749 [ 150 Cal.Rptr. 778 , 587 P.2d 220 , 3 A.L.R.4th 1171 ], our Supreme Court held, as a general *313 principle, whenever a judge accepts a plea bargain and retains sentencing discretion under the agreement, an implied term of the bargain is that sentence will be imposed by that judge. (Pp. 756-757; see also In re Mark L. (1983) 34 Cal.3d 171, 177 [ 193 Cal.Rptr. 165 , 666 P.2d 22 ].) In People v. Rosaia (1984) 157 Cal.App.3d 832 [ 203 Cal.Rptr. 856 ], the Fifth District Court of Appeal adopted a rule requiring that where a defendant has a right under Arbuckle to be sentenced by the judge who accepts a negotiated plea of guilty, the record of proceedings in the trial court must demonstrate the defendant’s knowledge of his Arbuckle right before there can be a valid waiver of the right. ( 22 Cal.3d at p. 840 .)

In this case, we hold that where a defendant entered into a detailed, comprehensive written negotiated plea agreement before the time set for his preliminary hearing in municipal court, and the agreement did not specify that the judge who took his plea would sentence him, defendant had no right under Arbuckle to be…

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.