Does the Attorney General's contention that a plea bargain agreement contains an explicit waiver of the protections of the double jeopardy clause?

[45 Cal.App.4th 871] Although we do not agree with the Attorney General's contention that Ricketts v. Adamson, supra, 483 U.S. 1, 107 S.Ct. 2680, 97 L.Ed.2d 1, is totally dispositive of defendant's claim, we agree that it provides an instructive starting point for our analysis. In that case, the high court held that, despite the absence of an explicit waiver of the protections of the double jeopardy clause in a plea bargain agreement or at the hearing for acceptance of the plea, such a waiver was implicit in "equivalent" language of the agreement. (Id. at p. 10, 107 S.Ct. at pp. 2685-2686.) The high court opined that any other conclusion would render the agreement "meaningless." (Ibid.)