People?v.?Walker?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?1013?,?1?Cal.Rptr.2d?902;?819?P.2d?861
[No.?S017854.?Dec?5,?1991.]THE?PEOPLE,?Plaintiff?and?Respondent,?v.?DEXTER?M.?WALKER,?Defendant?and?Appellant.
(Superior?Court?of?San?Bernardino?County,?No.?SCR46930,?Michael?A.?Smith,?Judge.)
(Opinion?by?Arabian,?J.,?expressing?the?unanimous?view?of?the?court.)
COUNSEL
Harvey?E.?Goldfine,?under?appointment?by?the?Supreme?Court,?for?Defendant?and?Appellant.
John?K.?Van?de?Kamp?and?Daniel?E.?Lungren,?Attorneys?General,?Richard?B.?Iglehart?and?George?Williamson,?Chief?Assistant?Attorneys?General,?Harley?D.?Mayfield,?Assistant?Attorney?General,?and?Robert?M.?Foster,?Deputy?Attorney?General,?for?Plaintiff?and?Respondent.
OPINION
ARABIAN,?J.
We?granted?review?in?this?case?to?resolve?a?conflict?in?the?Court?of?Appeal?over?the?proper?means?of?remedying?the?erroneous?imposition?of?a?restitution?fine.?As?explained?below,?we?order?the?restitution?fine?of?this?case?reduced?to?the?statutory?minimum?of?$100.
- Facts
Defendant?was?charged?by?information?with?two?felony?counts,?including,?in?count?2,?the?attempted?use?of?a?destructive?device?with?the?intent?to?injure?or?intimidate.?(Pen.?Code,???12303.3.)fn.?1?According?to?the?probation?report,?defendant?placed?in?his?ex-wife’s?car?a?bomb?which?was?designed?to?detonate?when?the?brake?lights?or?headlights?were?activated.?Fortunately,?the?bomb?was?discovered?and?defused?before?it?exploded.
On?April?21,?1988,?pursuant?to?a?plea?bargain,?defendant?pleaded?guilty?to?count?2.?The?district?attorney?and?defendant?agreed?that?in?return?for?the?[54?Cal.3d?1019]?guilty?plea,?count?1?would?be?dismissed,?and?defendant?would?be?sentenced?to?state?prison?for?the?midterm?of?five?years?with?credit?for?time?served.?Defendant?signed?a?change?of?plea?form,?and?initialed?his?understanding?of?the?agreement.?He?waived?his?constitutional?rights.?The?court?orally?explained?to?defendant?that?”the?maximum?penalties?provided?by?law?for?this?offense?are?either?3?years,?5?years,?or?7?years?in?state?prison?and?a?fine?of?up?to?$10,000,”?followed?by?a?period?of?parole.
The?court?sentenced?defendant?immediately?after?the?guilty?plea.?In?accordance?with?the?plea?bargain,?it?imposed?a?five-year?prison?sentence?and?awarded?credit?for?time?served.?It?also?imposed?a?restitution?fine?of?$5,000,?although?the?plea?agreement?did?not?mention?such?a?fine.?The?probation?report?prepared?before?the?plea,?and?supplied?to?the?defense,?recommended?a?$7,000?restitution?fine;?the?record?discloses?no?other?mention?of?the?possibility?of?such?a?fine?prior?to?sentencing.?Defendant?did?not?object?to?the?fine?at?sentencing.
Defendant?appealed?on?the?sole?ground?that?the?restitution?fine?was?not?part?of?the?plea?bargain,?and?should?be?stricken.?The?Court?of?Appeal?found?error,?but?held?that?the?only?remedy?was?to?allow?defendant?to?withdraw?his?guilty?plea?and,?if?he?chose?to?do?so,?to?reinstate?the?dismissed?count.?Accordingly,?it?reversed?the?judgment?and?remanded?the?matter?to?the?trial?court.?We?granted?review?to?consider?the?propriety?of?that?disposition.
- Discussion
- Background
A?person?convicted?of?a?felony?faces?the?possible?imposition?of?two?different?kinds?of?fine.?First?is?a?penal?fine,?up?to?$10,000?in?this?case.?(???672,?12303.3.)?The?court?”may”?impose?this?fine.?(??672.)?Second?is?a?restitution?fine.?As?relevant?to?this?case,?the?court?”shall”?impose?a?restitution?fine?of?at?least?$100?and?not?more?than?$10,000?(Gov.?Code,???13967,?subd.?(a))?”regardless?of?the?defendant’s?present?ability?to?pay.?However,?if?the?court?finds?that?there?are?compelling?and?extraordinary?reasons,?the?court?may?waive?imposition?of?the?fine.?When?such?a?waiver?is?granted,?the?court?shall?state?on?the?record?all?reasons?supporting?the?waiver.”?(??1202.4,?subd.?(a).)?”This?statutory?requirement?is?the?result?of?a?constitutional?amendment?adopted?by?the?voters?as?part?of?Proposition?8.?(See?Cal.?Const.,?art.?I,???28,?subd.?(b).)”?(People?v.?Davis?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?1305,?1309?[252?Cal.Rptr.?924].)
[1a]?Determining?whether?the?restitution?fine?in?this?case?was?properly?imposed?and,?if?not,?the?appropriate?remedy?to?correct?the?error,?requires?[54?Cal.3d?1020]?consideration?of?two?related?but?distinct?legal?principles.?(See?People?v.?Glennon?(1990)?225?Cal.App.3d?101,?104?[276?Cal.Rptr.?1].)The?first?principle?concerns?the?necessary?advisements?whenever?a?defendant?pleads?guilty,?whether?or?not?the?guilty?plea?is?part?of?a?plea?bargain.?The?defendant?must?be?admonished?of?and?waive?his?constitutional?rights.?(Boykin?v.?Alabama?(1969)?395?U.S.?238?[23?L.Ed.2d?274,?89?S.Ct.?1709];?In?re?Tahl?(1969)?1?Cal.3d?122?[81?Cal.Rptr.?577,?460?P.2d?449].)?In?addition,?and?pertinent?to?this?case,?the?defendant?must?be?advised?of?the?direct?consequences?of?the?plea.?(Bunnell?v.?Superior?Court?(1975)?13?Cal.3d?592,?605?[119?Cal.Rptr.?302,?531?P.2d?1086].)
The?second?principle?is?that?the?parties?must?adhere?to?the?terms?of?a?plea?bargain.?(People?v.?Mancheno?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?855,?860?[187?Cal.Rptr.?441,?654?P.2d?211].)
In?any?given?case,?there?may?be?a?violation?of?the?advisement?requirement,?of?the?plea?bargain,?or?of?both.?Although?these?possible?violations?are?related,?they?must?be?analyzed?separately,?for?the?nature?of?the?rights?involved?and?the?consequences?of?a?violation?differ?substantially.?Indeed,?much?of?the?confusion?engendered?by?the?appellate?decisions?on?this?issue?results?from?a?blurring?of?the?distinction?between?these?principles.
- The?Prior?Cases
The?first?case?to?consider?this?question?was?People?v.?Oberreuter?(1988)?204?Cal.App.3d?884?[251?Cal.Rptr.?522].?In?Oberreuter,?the?defendant?argued?that?the?restitution?fine?”must?be?stricken,?because?it?was?not?part?of?the?plea?bargain?and?[defendant]?was?not?advised?a?fine?could?be?imposed?as?possible?punishment?before?he?entered?his?plea.”?(Id.?at?p.?888.)?The?court?found?that?”a?restitution?fine,?like?any?other?penal?consequence,?may?not?be?imposed?on?a?plea-bargain?participant?where?it?was?not?included?in?the?negotiated?agreement.”?(Ibid.)?It?held?that?the?proper?remedy?for?the?violation?was?to?strike?the?fine.?(Id.?at?pp.?889-890.)?Justice?Benke?dissented,?finding?no?error?and?arguing?that?if?there?was?error,?the?proper?remedy?was?not?to?strike?the?fine?but?to?allow?the?defendant?to?withdraw?the?guilty?plea.?(Id.?at?pp.?890-893?(dis.?opn.?of?Benke,?J.).)
A?similar?contention?was?raised?in?People?v.?Robinson?(1988)?205?Cal.App.3d?280?[252?Cal.Rptr.?202].?The?Court?of?Appeal?dismissed?the?appeal?because?the?defendant?had?not?obtained?a?certificate?of?probable?cause,?but?stated?in?dicta?that?the?trial?court?must?advise?the?defendant?about?the?restitution?fine?prior?to?the?guilty?plea.?[54?Cal.3d?1021]
People?v.?Davis,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?1305,?was?the?first?decision?to?disagree?with?Oberreuter.?Davis?discussed?both?the?plea?bargain?and?advisement?issues,?and?concluded?the?defendant?was?not?entitled?to?relief?from?the?imposition?of?a?$100?restitution?fine.?Concerning?the?plea?bargain,?the?court?found?that?defendant?”has?not?demonstrated?that?the?plea?bargain?involved?any?limitation?on?the?court’s?mandatory?duty?to?impose?a?restitution?fine”?(id.?at?p.?1308),?and?that?”The?public?policy?represented?by?the?mandatory?fine?’is?too?substantial?to?permit?erosion’?by?reliance?on?mere?silence?in?the?course?of?a?plea?bargain.”?(Id.?at?p.?1309,?quoting?In?re?Chambliss?(1981)?119?Cal.App.3d?199,?203?[173?Cal.Rptr.?712].)?It?found?a?violation?of?the?advisement?requirement,?but?held?there?was?no?prejudice?because?of?the?small?amount?of?the?fine.?(Id.?at?pp.?1310-1311.)
In?People?v.?Ross?(1990)?217?Cal.App.3d?879?[265?Cal.Rptr.?921],?the?defendant?claimed?that?”the?imposition?of?restitution?fines?was?improper?and?they?must?be?stricken?because?[defendant]?was?not?advised?of?the?possibility?of?such?fines?when?she?entered?her?plea.”?(Id.?at?p.?885.)?Agreeing?with?Oberreuter?and?disagreeing?with?Davis,?the?court?held?that?the?fine?must?be?stricken.?It?pointed?out?that?imposition?of?the?restitution?fine?may?be?waived?for?”?’compelling?and?extraordinary’?”?reasons?(??1202.4,?subd.(a)),?and?reasoned?that?a?failure?of?advisement?was?a?valid?basis?for?not?imposing?the?fine.?(Ross,?supra,?at?p.?887.)
The?court?in?People?v.?Melton?(1990)?218?Cal.App.3d?1406?[267?Cal.Rptr.?640]?took?a?different?approach.?Although?a?plea?bargain?was?negotiated?and?a?guilty?plea?taken?without?mention?of?a?possible?restitution?fine,?the?probation?report?recommended?such?a?fine.?In?light?of?this,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?the?defendant’s?failure?to?object?to?the?imposition?of?the?fine?waived?his?right?to?challenge?the?fine?on?appeal.
In?People?v.?Williams?(1990)?224?Cal.App.3d?179?[273?Cal.Rptr.?526],?the?court?reviewed?the?prior?cases?and?agreed?with?Ross?and?Oberreuter.?It?ordered?the?restitution?fine?stricken?both?because?of?the?failure?of?advisement?and?because?it?was?not?a?part?of?the?negotiated?plea.?(Id.?at?pp.?185-186.)
Most?recently,?in?People?v.?Glennon,?supra,?225?Cal.App.3d?101,?the?court?noted?that?the?guilty?plea?was?not?the?result?of?a?negotiated?disposition.?Hence?the?court?concluded?that?”it?is?appropriate,?in?such?cases?where?there?is?no?evidence?of?breach?of?the?plea?agreement,?to?deny?relief?unless?the?error?is?shown?to?be?prejudicial.”?(Id.?at?p.?105.)?The?court?found?no?prejudice?and?would?have?denied?relief,?except?that?the?trial?court?(unnecessarily)?advised?the?defendant?at?the?time?of?the?plea?”that?he?could?withdraw?it?if?the?indicated?disposition?was?not?the?sentence?imposed.”?(Id.?at?pp.?105-106.)?In?[54?Cal.3d?1022]?light?of?this?advice,?the?court?allowed?the?defendant?to?withdraw?his?guilty?plea.?(Id.?at?p.?106.)
The?Court?of?Appeal?here?found?that?the?trial?court?had?erroneously?failed?to?advise?defendant?under?section?1192.5?that?if?it?imposed?a?sentence?other?than?in?conformity?with?the?plea?bargain,?he?could?withdraw?the?guilty?plea.?It?held?that?since?restitution?fines?are?”statutorily?mandated,”?the?only?remedy?is?to?allow?the?defendant?to?withdraw?the?guilty?plea.
Thus,?confronted?with?error?in?the?imposition?of?a?restitution?fine,?some?courts?have?granted?no?relief?(Davis,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?1305;?and?Melton,?supra,?218?Cal.App.3d?1406),?others?have?ordered?the?fine?stricken?(Oberreuter,?supra,?204?Cal.App.3d?884;?Ross,?supra,?217?Cal.App.3d?879;?and?Williams,?supra,?224?Cal.App.3d?179),?and?still?others?have?allowed?the?defendant?to?withdraw?his?guilty?plea?(Glennon,?supra,?225?Cal.App.3d?101,?and?the?court?in?this?matter).?As?we?explain,?however,?the?proper?remedy?depends?on?the?nature?of?the?error,?and?the?time?and?manner?in?which?it?is?brought?to?the?attention?of?the?court.?Language?in?the?foregoing?decisions?inconsistent?with?the?following?analysis?is?disapproved.
- Advisement?of?the?Consequences?of?the?Plea
First,?”Unlike?an?uninformed?waiver?of?the?specified?constitutional?rights?which?renders?a?plea?or?admission?involuntary?and?requires?that?it?be?set?aside,?an?uninformed?waiver?based?on?the?failure?of?the?court?to?advise?an?accused?of?the?consequences?of?an?admission?constitutes?error?which?requires?[54?Cal.3d?1023]?that?the?admission?be?set?aside?only?if?the?error?is?prejudicial?to?the?accused.”?(In?re?Ronald?E.?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?315,?321?[137?Cal.Rptr.?781,?562?P.2d?684].)?”A?showing?of?prejudice?requires?the?appellant?to?demonstrate?that?it?is?reasonably?probable?he?would?not?have?entered?his?plea?if?he?had?been?told?about?the?fine.”?(People?v.?Glennon,?supra,?225?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?105;?see?also?People?v.?Wright,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?495.)
Second,?the?error?is?waived?absent?a?timely?objection.?In?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?218?Cal.App.3d?at?page?1408,?as?in?this?case,?the?imposition?of?a?fine?was?recommended?in?the?probation?report.?The?Melton?court?held?that?the?defendants’?failure?to?object?to?the?fine?at?the?sentencing?hearing?waived?the?failure?to?advise?of?the?possibility?of?the?fine.?We?agree.?”The?purpose?of?the?general?doctrine?of?waiver?is?to?encourage?a?defendant?to?bring?errors?to?the?attention?of?the?trial?court,?so?that?they?may?be?corrected?or?avoided?and?a?fair?trial?had.?…?[?]?In?this?case,?the?record?reflects?that?defense?counsel?was?familiar?with?the?probation?report.?Had?the?recommendation?that?defendants?be?ordered?to?pay?a?restitution?fine?come?as?a?genuine?surprise,?it?would?have?been?a?simple?matter?to?bring?the?issue?to?the?attention?of?the?trial?court.”?(Id.?at?p.?1409.)
[4]?Thus,?when?the?only?error?is?a?failure?to?advise?of?the?consequences?of?the?plea,?the?error?is?waived?if?not?raised?at?or?before?sentencing.?Upon?a?timely?objection,?the?sentencing?court?must?determine?whether?the?error?prejudiced?the?defendant,?i.e.,?whether?it?is?”reasonably?probable”?the?defendant?would?not?have?pleaded?guilty?if?properly?advised.?(People?v.?Glennon,?supra,?225?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?105.)As?the?defendant?is?already?before?the?court?at?sentencing,?this?determination?of?prejudice?should?not?be?difficult?or?time?consuming.?The?court?should?consider?the?defendant’s?financial?condition,?the?seriousness?of?the?consequences?of?which?the?defendant?was?advised,?the?nature?of?the?crimes?charged,?the?punishment?actually?imposed,?and?the?size?of?the?restitution?fine.?(See?People?v.?Wright,?supra,?43?Cal.3d?at?p.?499;?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?218?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1408,?fn.?1.)?The?last?of?these?factors?is?particularly?important.?As?noted?in?People?v.?Davis,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?at?page?1311,?”in?the?case?of?a?minimal?fine?[of?$100]?no?showing?of?prejudice?normally?will?be?possible.”
If?the?sentencing?court?finds?no?prejudice,?the?defendant?is?not?entitled?to?relief.?When?there?is?prejudice,?and?a?timely?objection,?the?defendant?is?entitled?to?a?remedy.?The?situation?then?is?analogous?to?a?violation?of?a?plea?bargain?that?is?brought?to?the?attention?of?the?sentencing?court.?As?explained?below,?the?court?must,?under?such?circumstances,?adopt?either?of?two?remedies:?[54?Cal.3d?1024]?impose?only?the?statutory?minimum?of?$100,?or?give?the?defendant?the?option?to?withdraw?the?plea.
- Violation?of?the?Plea?Bargain
“?'[W]hen?a?plea?rests?in?any?significant?degree?on?a?promise?or?agreement?of?the?prosecutor,?so?that?it?can?be?said?to?be?part?of?the?inducement?or?consideration,?such?promise?must?be?fulfilled.’?(Santobello?v.?New?York?[(1971)]?404?U.S.?[257,]?262?[30?L.Ed.2d?427,?433,?92?S.Ct.?495].)?[?]?The?Supreme?Court?has?thus?recognized?that?due?process?applies?not?only?to?the?procedure?of?accepting?the?plea?(see?Boykin?v.?Alabama?(1969)?395?U.S.?238?[23?L.Ed.2d?274,?89?S.Ct.?1709]),?but?that?the?requirements?of?due?process?attach?also?to?implementation?of?the?bargain?itself.?It?necessarily?follows?that?violation?of?the?bargain?by?an?officer?of?the?state?raises?a?constitutional?right?to?some?remedy.”?(People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?855,?860;?see?also?People?v.?Glennon,?supra,?225?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?104.)?Although?the?purpose?of?a?restitution?fine?is?not?punitive,?we?believe?its?consequences?to?the?defendant?are?severe?enough?that?it?qualifies?as?punishment?for?this?purpose.?Accordingly,?the?restitution?fine?should?generally?be?considered?in?plea?negotiations.
This?does?not?mean?that?any?deviation?from?the?terms?of?the?agreement?is?constitutionally?impermissible.?As?Santobello?v.?New?York?(1971)?404?U.S.?257,?262?[30?L.Ed.2d?427,?433,?92?S.Ct.?495],?suggests,?the?variance?must?be?”significant”?in?the?context?of?the?plea?bargain?as?a?whole?to?violate?the?defendant’s?rights.?A?punishment?or?related?condition?that?is?insignificant?relative?to?the?whole,?such?as?a?standard?condition?of?probation,?may?be?imposed?whether?or?not?it?was?part?of?the?express?negotiations.
[6]?Whether?or?not?a?defendant?waives?an?objection?to?punishment?exceeding?the?terms?of?the?bargain?by?the?failure?to?raise?the?point?in?some?fashion?at?sentencing?depends?upon?whether?the?trial?court?followed?the?requirements?of?section?1192.5.?That?section?provides?in?pertinent?part?that?when?a?plea?bargain?is?accepted?by?the?parties?and?approved?by?the?court,?the?defendant?generally?”cannot?be?sentenced?on?such?plea?to?a?punishment?more?severe?than?that?specified?in?the?plea?and?the?court?may?not?proceed?as?to?such?plea?other?than?as?specified?in?the?plea.”?The?court?”shall?inform?the?defendant?prior?to?the?making?of?the?plea?that?(1)?its?approval?is?not?binding,?[54?Cal.3d?1025]?(2)?it?may,?at?the?time?set?for?the?hearing?on?the?application?for?probation?or?pronouncement?of?judgment,?withdraw?its?approval?in?the?light?of?further?consideration?of?the?matter,?and?(3)?in?such?case,?the?defendant?shall?be?permitted?to?withdraw?his?plea?if?he?desires?to?do?so.”?(??1192.5.)Absent?compliance?with?the?section?1192.5?procedure,?the?defendant’s?constitutional?right?to?the?benefit?of?his?bargain?is?not?waived?by?a?mere?failure?to?object?at?sentencing.?”Of?course,?there?can?be?no?waiver?of?a?constitutional?right?absent?’an?intentional?relinquishment?or?abandonment?of?a?known?right?or?privilege.’?[Citation.]?No?less?should?a?court?presume?from?mere?silence?that?defendant?is?waiving?implementation?of?the?consideration?that?induced?him?to?waive?his?constitutional?rights.”?(People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?864.)
When,?however,?the?section?1192.5?admonition?is?given,?and?it?is?generally?required,?the?situation?is?quite?different.?The?issue?then?becomes?whether?the?defendant?has?relinquished?his?statutory?right?to?withdraw?the?plea.?People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?855,?does?not?state?whether?the?admonition?was?given?in?that?case,?and?thus?it?does?not?address?the?point.
We?have?held?that?absent?a?section?1192.5?admonition,?a?defendant’s?”failure?affirmatively?to?request?a?change?of?plea?should?not?be?deemed?a?waiver?of?his?right?to?do?so.?Since?he?was?never?advised?of?his?rights?under?section?1192.5,?he?should?not?be?held?to?have?waived?them.”?(People?v.?Johnson?(1974)?10?Cal.3d?868,?872?[112?Cal.Rptr.?556,?519?P.2d?604],?fn.?omitted.)?Implicit?in?this?reasoning?is?that?when?the?admonition?is?given,?the?failure?affirmatively?to?request?a?change?of?plea?does?waive?the?right?to?do?so.?(See?id.?at?p.?872,?fn.?3?[distinguishing?prior?cases?which?supported?a?finding?of?waiver?on?the?basis?of?the?absence?of?the?admonition].)?A?line?of?cases?in?an?analogous?situation?supports?this?conclusion.
In?People?v.?Arbuckle?(1978)?22?Cal.3d?749?[150?Cal.Rptr.?778,?587?P.2d?220,?3?A.L.R.4th?1171],?we?held?that?when?a?judge?accepts?a?plea?bargain?and?retains?sentencing?discretion,?it?is?generally?an?implied?term?of?the?bargain?that?sentence?will?be?imposed?by?that?judge.?The?question?naturally?arose?whether?a?defendant?waives?this?implied?term?by?silence?when?a?different?judge?imposes?sentence.?The?exact?answer?to?this?question?is?currently?unsettled,?as?the?several?appellate?decisions?conflict.?(See?fn.?2,?post.)?But?as?analogous?to?this?case,?the?decisions?all?suggest?a?finding?of?waiver?upon?the?giving?of?a?section?1192.5?admonition.
In?People?v.?Rosaia?(1984)?157?Cal.App.3d?832,?840?[203?Cal.Rptr.?856],?the?court?found?that?the?Arbuckle?right?”may?be?waived?by?conduct,”?i.e.,?by?[54?Cal.3d?1026]?not?seeking?to?withdraw?the?guilty?plea?or?otherwise?objecting?at?sentencing.?It?went?on?to?hold?that?”fairness?dictates?that?before?accepting?silence?or?acquiesence?in?sentencing?by?a?different?judge?as?a?waiver,?the?court?must?satisfy?itself?from?the?record?that?defendant?knew?he?had?the?right?to?be?sentenced?by?the?same?judge?who?took?his?plea.?The?court?cannot?reasonably?assume?or?speculate?that?the?defendant?had?the?requisite?knowledge?of?his?Arbuckle?rights?even?if?represented?by?an?attorney.”?(Ibid.)
In?part,?the?analysis?of?Rosaia?has?come?under?substantial?attack,?but?for?reasons?not?pertinent?to?this?case.?(Cf.?People?v.?Adams?(1990)?224?Cal.App.3d?1540?[274?Cal.Rptr.?629]?and?People?v.?Serrato?(1988)?201?Cal.App.3d?761?[247?Cal.Rptr.?322]?with?People?v.?Horn?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?701?[261?Cal.Rptr.?814].)fn.?2?All?of?these?cases?agree?with?Rosaia?to?the?extent?it?finds?waiver?at?least?when?the?court?has?advised?the?defendant?of?the?existence?of?the?Arbuckle?right.?The?Rosaia?rationale?applies?here?(even?if?not?under?its?own?facts-see?fn.?2,?ante).?Absent?a?section?1192.5?admonition,?we?cannot?assume?defendant?knew?he?had?a?right?to?withdraw?his?plea.?But?when?the?admonition?is?given,?and?the?defendant?does?not?ask?to?withdraw?the?plea?or?otherwise?object?to?the?sentence,?he?has?waived?the?right?to?complain?of?the?sentence?later.
[7]?A?violation?of?a?plea?bargain?is?not?subject?to?harmless?error?analysis.?A?court?may?not?impose?punishment?significantly?greater?than?that?bargained?for?by?finding?the?defendant?would?have?agreed?to?the?greater?punishment?had?it?been?made?a?part?of?the?plea?offer.?”Because?a?court?can?only?speculate?why?a?defendant?would?negotiate?for?a?particular?term?of?a?bargain,?implementation?should?not?be?contingent?on?others’?assessment?of?the?value?of?the?term?to?defendant.?[?]?…?[?]?Moreover,?the?concept?of?harmless?error?only?addresses?whether?the?defendant?is?prejudiced?by?the?error.?However,?in?the?context?of?a?broken?plea?agreement,?there?is?more?at?stake?than?the?liberty?of?the?defendant?or?the?length?of?his?term.?’At?stake?is?the?honor?of?the?government[,]?public?confidence?in?the?fair?administration?of?justice,?and?the?efficient?administration?of?justice?….’?”?(People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?pp.?865-866,?quoting?United?States?v.?Carter?(4th?Cir.?1972)?454?F.2d?426,?428?(in?bank).)- The?Appropriate?Remedy
We?now?decide?the?proper?remedy?for?those?cases?when?the?defendant?is?entitled?to?relief?under?the?above?rules.?”The?usual?remedies?for?violation?of?[54?Cal.3d?1027]?a?plea?bargain?are?to?allow?defendant?to?withdraw?the?plea?and?go?to?trial?on?the?original?charges,?or?to?specifically?enforce?the?plea?bargain?[i.e.,?in?this?case?to?strike?the?nonbargained?restitution?fine].”?(People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?pp.?860-861.)?Here,?we?believe,?a?third?option?is?appropriate-to?reduce?the?fine?to?the?statutory?minimum?of?$100.
The?Court?of?Appeal?in?this?case?held?that?striking?the?fine?is?not?appropriate?because?the?fine?is?mandatory.?(See?also?People?v.?Davis,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1309.)?We?agree.?Although?the?statute?allows?the?court?to?waive?imposition?of?the?fine?if?it?finds?”compelling?and?extraordinary?reasons,”?the?reasons?must?be?stated?on?the?record.?(??1202.4,?subd.?(a).)?No?such?reasons?were?found?or?stated?in?this?case.?Thus,?striking?the?fine?altogether?would?violate?this?statutory?mandate.
However,?allowing?the?defendant?to?withdraw?his?plea?for?want?of?a?restitution?fine?will?often?be?undesirable.?Although?the?imposition?of?a?restitution?fine?constitutes?an?important?benefit?to?crime?victims,?so?too?does?the?orderly?and?considered?entry?of?a?plea?bargain.?Negotiated?pleas?facilitate?the?efficient?disposition?of?causes?and?allow?victims?to?avoid?the?trauma?and?inconvenience?of?trial.?Allowing?a?defendant?to?withdraw?a?guilty?plea?will?often?run?counter?to?the?interests?of?crime?victims.?The?benefit?in?enforcing?a?negotiated?plea?may?far?exceed?the?value?of?the?restitution?fine,?whatever?its?amount.?The?voters?and?the?Legislature?cannot?have?intended?that?the?mandatory?restitution?fine?could?invalidate?a?plea?bargain?when?that?result?would?actually?harm?rather?than?benefit?the?victims?of?crime.
Another?remedy?is?available?between?the?extremes?of?specific?performance?(striking?the?fine?altogether)?and?voiding?the?guilty?plea,?a?remedy?akin?to?substantial?specific?performance.?This?is?simply?to?reduce?the?fine?to?the?statutory?minimum?of?$100.?Unlike?striking?the?fine?entirely,?such?a?reduction?would?not?violate?the?mandatory?nature?of?the?fine.
It?would?also?not?violate?the?defendant’s?right?to?the?benefit?of?his?bargain.?[8]?As?noted?above,?only?a?punishment?significantly?greater?than?that?bargained?for?violates?the?plea?bargain.?The?restitution?fine?applies?only?to?felony?convictions.?(??1202.4,?subd.?(a).)?A?person?who?pleads?to?a?felony?as?part?of?a?bargain?generally?does?so?to?avoid?prison,?reduce?the?maximum?term,?or?have?other?charges?dismissed.?In?the?context?of?felony?pleas,?a?$100?fine?is?not,?as?a?matter?of?law,?”significant.”?(See?also?People?v.?Davis,?supra,?205?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1311.)fn.?3?[54?Cal.3d?1028]
Reducing?the?fine?to?$100?would?thus?achieve?substantial?compliance?with?the?terms?of?the?plea?bargain?without?violating?the?statutory?requirement?of?a?restitution?fine.?Such?a?result?would?generally?not?prejudice?the?prosecution?or?court,?for?if?a?greater?fine?had?been?considered?critical?it?would?surely?not?have?been?overlooked?in?the?negotiation?process.
[9]?For?these?reasons,?if?the?breach?of?the?plea?bargain?is?brought?to?the?attention?of?the?court?at?the?time?of?sentencing,?the?court?should,?in?its?discretion,?either?allow?the?defendant?to?withdraw?the?guilty?plea?or?reduce?the?fine?to?the?minimum?of?$100.?”The?goal?in?providing?a?remedy?for?breach?of?the?bargain?is?to?redress?the?harm?caused?by?the?violation?without?prejudicing?either?party?or?curtailing?the?normal?sentencing?discretion?of?the?trial?judge.?The?remedy?chosen?will?vary?depending?on?the?circumstances?of?each?case.”?(People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?p.?860.)?Factors?to?be?considered?by?the?trial?court?are?the?importance?of?imposing?a?greater?restitution?fine,?the?interests?of?the?parties?and?victims,?whether?circumstances?have?changed?between?entry?of?the?plea?and?the?time?of?sentencing,?and?whether?reducing?the?fine?would?constrain?the?court?to?a?disposition?that?it?determines?to?be?inappropriate.?(See?ibid.)?The?People?as?well?as?the?defendant?may?seek?specific?enforcement,?or,?in?this?case,?substantial?specific?performance.?(Id.?at?p.?861;?People?v.?Kaanehe?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?1,?13?[136?Cal.Rptr.?409,?559?P.2d?1028].)When?the?violation?is?not?raised?at?sentencing?but?later,?generally?on?appeal,?the?passage?of?time?tilts?the?relevant?interests?strongly?towards?reducing?the?fine?rather?than?undoing?the?plea?bargain.?Because?normally?the?defendant?will?have?”completed?a?substantial?portion?of?his?prison?term,?permitting?him?to?withdraw?his?guilty?plea?cannot?restore?the?status?he?enjoyed?before?sentencing.”?(People?v.?Oberreuter,?supra,?204?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?889.)?Even?if?the?defendant?has?not?served?a?substantial?portion?of?the?prison?term,?for?example?when?he?has?been?granted?bail?pending?appeal,?he?may?have?relied?on?the?plea?bargain?in?other?ways.
The?People?may?also?be?prejudiced?by?nullifying?the?plea?agreement.?The?passage?of?time?may?have?caused?some?witnesses’?memories?to?dim.?Other?witnesses?may?be?missing.?Victims?might?be?traumatized?by?the?resurrection?of?a?criminal?proceeding?long?since?believed?resolved.?In?addition,?a?new?hearing?to?allow?the?trial?court?to?choose?between?striking?the?fine?and?[54?Cal.3d?1029]?allowing?withdrawal?of?the?plea,?with?the?necessity?of?transporting?the?defendant?from?prison?elsewhere?in?the?state?and?the?concomitant?security?arrangements,?would?often?cost?the?criminal?justice?system?far?more?than?might?actually?be?collected?as?part?of?the?restitution?fine.
To?avoid?the?anomaly?of?restitution?fines?costing?more?money?than?they?generate,?and?causing?more?harm?than?benefit?to?victims,?a?bright-line?rule?is?desirable.?In?People?v.?Vasquez?Diaz?(1991)?229?Cal.App.3d?1310,?1316?[280?Cal.Rptr.?599],?the?trial?court?failed?to?refer?to?the?restitution?fine?at?sentencing.?Rather?than?remand?for?the?trial?court?to?determine?the?appropriate?fine?between?$100?and?$10,000-a?remedy?described?as?”judicially?uneconomical”-the?appellate?court?itself?imposed?the?$100?minimum.?(Ibid.;?see?also?People?v.?Blankenship?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?992,?1000?[262?Cal.Rptr.?141].)?The?same?should?be?done?here.?[10]?Accordingly,?we?hold?that?if?the?breach?of?the?plea?bargain?is?first?raised?after?sentencing,?the?proper?remedy?generally?is?to?reduce?the?fine?to?the?statutory?minimum,?and?to?leave?the?plea?bargain?intact.fn.?4
- Application?of?These?Principles?to?This?Case
We?now?apply?these?principles?to?the?case?at?bar.?The?trial?court?only?advised?the?defendant?that?a?$10,000?fine?was?a?possible?consequence?of?the?guilty?plea.?This?was?inadequate.?The?court?should?have?advised?defendant?there?was?a?possible?$10,000?penalty?fine?and?a?mandatory?restitution?fine?of?between?$100?and?$10,000.?This?error,?standing?alone,?would?not?entitle?defendant?to?a?remedy?for?two?reasons.
First,?defendant?waived?the?error?by?not?objecting?to?the?fine?when?it?was?imposed.?Second,?he?has?not?shown?prejudice.?Although?the?court?advised?him?of?a?possible?$10,000?fine?(with?the?nature?of?the?fine?unspecified),?it?imposed?no?penalty?fine?at?all?and?only?a?$5,000?restitution?fine.?Since?the?actual?fine?imposed?was?less?than?that?advised,?defendant?was?not?prejudiced?by?the?incomplete?admonition.
However,?the?$5,000?restitution?fine?was?a?significant?deviation?from?the?negotiated?terms?of?the?plea?bargain.?Since?the?court?did?not?give?the?section?[54?Cal.3d?1030]?1192.5?admonition,?and?this?was?not?merely?a?failure?to?advise?of?the?consequences?of?the?plea,?defendant?cannot?be?deemed?to?have?waived?his?rights?by?silent?acquiesence.?Nor?did?he?waive?them?expressly.?As?harmless?error?analysis?is?not?applicable,?defendant?is?entitled?to?a?remedy.?The?error?was?raised?for?the?first?time?on?appeal.?Therefore,?the?fine?must?be?reduced?to?the?minimum?of?$100.
- Conclusion
We?stress?that?the?rules?announced?herein?apply?to?judicial?error,?and?do?not?represent?the?norm.?Courts?and?the?parties?should?take?care?to?consider?restitution?fines?during?the?plea?negotiations.?The?court?should?always?admonish?the?defendant?of?the?statutory?minimum?$100?and?maximum?$10,000?restitution?fine?as?one?of?the?consequences?of?any?guilty?plea,?and?should?give?the?section?1192.5?admonition?whenever?required?by?that?statute.?Routine?compliance?with?these?requirements?will?obviate?the?need?to?apply?the?procedures?set?forth?herein.?We?endorse?the?observation?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?People?v.?Melton,?supra,?218?Cal.App.3d?at?page?1409,?footnote?2:?”As?a?matter?of?encouragement?to?both?the?trial?court?and?the?prosecuting?attorneys,?we?note?that?the?stream?of?cases?similar?to?this?which?reach?the?appellate?courts?would?dry?up?if?trial?courts?would?either?require?defendants?to?sign?a?written?change?of?plea?form?specifying?all?serious?consequences?of?the?plea?[see?In?re?Ibarra?(1983)?34?Cal.3d?277,?284-?286?(493?Cal.Rptr.?538,?666?P.2d?980)],?or?follow?an?informal?’script’?in?orally?taking?pleas.?Where?the?court?inadvertently?omits?to?list?or?explain?a?significant?factor,?the?prosecuting?attorney?should?be?alert?to?ensure?that?it?is?expressly?brought?to?the?defendant’s?attention.”?To?this?we?add?that?whenever?possible,?any?error?in?taking?the?plea?should?be?brought?to?the?attention?of?the?court?at?sentencing?so?that?it?can?be?addressed?expeditiously.?[54?Cal.3d?1031] III.?Disposition
The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?reversed?and?remanded?with?directions?to?modify?the?judgment?of?the?trial?court?by?reducing?the?$5,000?restitution?fine?to?$100?and?to?affirm?it?as?modified.
Lucas,?C.?J.,?Mosk,?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?Kennard,?J.,?Baxter,?J.,?and?George,?J.,?concurred.
FN?1.?All?further?statutory?references?are?to?the?Penal?Code?unless?otherwise?indicated.
FN?2.?Serrato?and?Adams?point?out?that?”?’Knowledge?by?the?defendant?of?his?Arbuckle?right?as?a?part?of?the?plea?bargain?is?implicit?in?the?reasoning?of?Arbuckle.’?”?(Adams,?supra,?224?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1544,?quoting?Serrato,?supra,?201?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?765.)?Thus,?they?argue,?Rosaia?errs?in?requiring?an?express?admonition?before?finding?the?requisite?knowledge.?Horn?attempts?to?find?a?middle?path?between?these?cases.?We?express?no?opinion?of?the?merits?of?this?disagreement.
FN?3.?We?stress?that?normally?the?defendant?should?not?receive?any?more?punishment?than?that?bargained?for.?We?allow?the?nonbargained?$100?fine?in?this?case?because?it?is?statutorily?mandated?and?is?not?significant?in?the?context?of?the?bargain?as?a?whole.?Courts?should?generally?be?cautious?about?deeming?nonbargained?punishment?to?be?insignificant.?The?test?whether?a?punishment?greater?than?that?bargained?for?is?”significant”?under?Santobello?v.?New?York,?supra,404?U.S.?257,?is?stricter?than?the?prejudice?test?for?a?mere?failure?to?advise?of?the?consequences?of?a?nonbargained?plea.?Punishment?that?is?not?prejudicial,?i.e.,?when?it?is?not?reasonably?probable?the?defendant?would?not?have?pleaded?guilty?if?informed?of?the?punishment?(see?People?v.?Mancheno,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?at?pp.?865-?866),?may?well?be?”significant”?if?imposed?after?a?negotiated?plea.
FN?4.?We?note?that?the?Legislature?has?recently?amended?section?1018?to?provide,?in?pertinent?part:?”On?application?of?the?defendant?at?any?time?before?judgment?or?within?six?months?after?an?order?granting?probation?is?made?if?entry?of?judgment?is?suspended,?the?court?may?…,?for?a?good?cause?shown,?permit?the?plea?of?guilty?to?be?withdrawn?and?a?plea?of?not?guilty?substituted.”?(Stats.?1991,?ch.?421,?No.?5?West’s?Cal.?Legis.?Service,?p.?1900?[No.?5?Deering’s?Adv.?Legis.?Service,?p.?1813]?[italics?indicating?recently?added?language].)
Although?defendant?was?not?granted?probation,?and?the?amendment?thus?does?not?apply?to?him,?the?language?limiting?the?period?in?which?a?person?granted?probation?may?be?allowed?to?withdraw?a?guilty?plea?supports?our?conclusion?that?on?appeal,?the?defendant?should?not?be?allowed?to?withdraw?the?guilty?plea.