California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Vargas, 223 Cal.App.3d 1107, 273 Cal.Rptr. 48 (Cal. App. 1990):
Defendant points to the absence of an advisement about Penal Code section 1192.5 in the plea bargain colloquy and argues that, notwithstanding his earlier agreement to the sentence, that statute gave him a right to withdraw his plea. We adopt the characterization of that argument by another court faced with a similar contention: it is a "red herring." (See People v. Jackson (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 635, 638, 163 Cal.Rptr. 115.) In Jackson, defendant had agreed to a plea bargain that called for a maximum incarceration of six months in county jail, but which was conditioned upon his not having a prior record. The probation report revealed a considerable record, and the trial court sentenced defendant to state prison. Defendant argued that Penal Code section 1192.5 entitled him to withdraw his plea if the court intended to impose a greater term than six months. But "the court didn't change the bargain. The express agreement required a misdemeanor sentence only upon the condition of defendant having a clean record. If that condition were not met, neither the bargain nor the statute gave defendant the right to withdraw his plea. To the contrary, upon failure of the condition, the court was free to exercise its discretion." (103 Cal.App.3d at p. 638, 163 Cal.Rptr. 115.)
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.