In re Lunceford

Good Law
191 Cal. App. 3d 180·1987 Cal. App. LEXIS 1593·236 Cal. Rptr. 274
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 17, 1987No. B024675California1,369 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Woods, J.

By petition for writ of habeas corpus, a felony defendant challenges the sentencing judge’s refusal to permit him to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea after the judge refused to approve the negotiated sentence because defendant had failed to appear on the date set for his probation and sentencing hearing.

We conclude that Penal Code section 1192.5 1 mandates that a defendant be permitted to withdraw his negotiated guilty plea and proceed to trial when the court declines to approve the negotiated sentence, even where the defendant fails to appear on the original sentencing date.

Defendant was charged in a two-count information with “joyriding” (count I—a violation of Veh. Code, § 10851) and receiving stolen property (count II, a violation of § 496).

On August 11, 1986, defendant entered into a negotiated plea bargain under which he entered a guilty plea to count I. The 'People promised to dismiss count II at the time of sentencing. Defendant was guaranteed that his sentence would be either county jail time or probation, at the discretion *182 of the sentencing judge. If probation were granted, the sentencing judge would determine the length of the period and could…

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.