Villalobos

BACKGROUND

Defendant was charged with attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and second degree robbery, with each count including enhancements. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder with a street-

1 gang enhancement and to second degree robbery in exchange for a 17-year prison term and dismissal of the other allegations. During the plea colloquy, the prosecutor informed the trial court of the agreement and then said, “ „there are obviously the advisements. This is going to be a plea regarding gang registration and restitution, [a] strike and the deportation consequences pursuant to [Penal Code, section] 186.30.‟ The court responded, „Those will definitely be all incorporated.‟ The court asked whether [defendant] understood the maximum prison sentence to be 15 years to life. [Defendant] said he understood. The court . . . asked whether [defendant] agreed to a [prison] term of 17 years. [Defendant] said he [did]. The court advised [defendant] of other consequences of his plea, including possible immigration consequences and the possibility that the plea would establish a parole or probation violation. [Defendant] said he understood.” The court then…

We granted review to address whether imposition of a mandatory restitution fine violates a defendant’s plea agreement where the parties fail to make the fine an express term of the agreement and where the trial court fails to mention the fine during the plea colloquy. We explained in People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 [ 57 Cal.Rptr.3d 349 , 156 P.3d 364 ] {Crandell), that “ ‘the core question in every case is . . . whether the restitution fine was actually negotiated and made a part of the plea agreement, or whether it was left to the discretion of the court.’ ” {Id. at p. 1309, quoting the Court of Appeal.) Because the amount of defendant’s restitution fine was neither made a part of his plea agreement nor otherwise specified in the plea colloquy, we conclude that it was left to the trial court’s discretion. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion. Accordingly, we affirm its judgment.

Background

Defendant was charged with attempted premeditated murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and second degree robbery, with each count including enhancements. Defendant pleaded no contest to attempted murder with a street gang enhancement and to second degree robbery…

Here, a criminal defendant and the prosecution entered into a plea bargain. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $4,000 restitution fine and a $4,000 parole revocation fine, even though the plea agreement made no mention of these fines. I disagree with the majority’s holding that these fines did not violate the plea bargain.

I

Seventeen-year-old defendant Ramiro Villalobos was charged in Tulare Superior Court with attempted premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, 664, *187 subd. (a)), 1 second degree robbery (§ 211), and assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). As to each offense, the prosecution alleged as sentence enhancements that defendant inflicted great bodily injury (former § 12022.7, subd. (a)), that he used a deadly weapon (former § 12022, subd. (b)(1)), and that he committed the crime to benefit a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)(C)).

Defendant and the prosecution entered into a plea bargain. Defendant agreed to enter a plea of no contest to attempted murder without premeditation and second degree robbery, and to admit that he committed the attempted murder to benefit a criminal street gang. In reciting to the trial court the terms of the…