Can a defendant who entered into a plea bargain in return for a less lenient sentence at the appellate court challenge the sentence imposed by the trial court?

"'Where defendants have pleaded guilty in return for a specified sentence, appellate courts are not inclined to find error even though the trial court acts in excess of jurisdiction in reaching that figure, as long as the court does not lack fundamental jurisdiction. . . . The rationale behind this policy is that defendants who have received the benefit of their bargain should not be allowed to "trifle with the courts" by attempting to better the bargain through the appellate process.' [Citation.] 'Where a court is merely acting in excess of its jurisdiction, the defendant who agrees to such actions may be estopped later from challenging the court's actions on jurisdictional grounds.' [Citation.]" (Couch, supra, 48 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1056-1057; see also People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295.) "When a defendant maintains that the trial court's sentence violates rules which would have required the imposition of a more lenient sentence, yet the defendant avoided a potentially harsher sentence by entering into the plea bargain, it may be implied that the defendant waived any rights under such rules by

Page 8

choosing to accept the plea bargain." (Couch, supra, at p. 1057.)