P.

P. v. Jackson CA4/2

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 29, 2013E056632California1,627 words

Opinion

Opinion

facts that are pertinent to the issues we must resolve in this appeal.

2 exchange, the People would “dismiss [the] balance” of the counts and enhancement

allegations. Defendant subsequently pled guilty in accordance with his plea agreement.

However, neither the parties nor the trial court dismissed the remaining counts or prior

prison term enhancement allegations.

Defendant contends, and the People correctly concede, that he is entitled to a

dismissal of counts 1 through 5, as well as the prior prison term allegations. We agree.

“A negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, and it is interpreted according to

general contract principles. [Citations.] „The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation

is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties.‟ [Citation.] If contractual language is

clear and explicit, it governs. [Citation.]” (People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767.)

“ „The mutual intention to which the courts give effect is determined by objective

manifestations of the parties‟ intent, including the words used in the agreement, as well as

extrinsic evidence of such objective matters as the surrounding circumstances under which

the parties…

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.