1

Filed 2/9/24 In re D.P. CA1/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or 

ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

In re D.P., a Person Coming Under 

the Juvenile Court Law.

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

D.P.,

Defendant and Appellant.

 A167604

 (Contra Costa 

County 

 Super. Ct. No. J21-

00270)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

The Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a Welfare and 

Institutions Code section 602 wardship petition alleging D.P. (minor) 

committed one count of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code, §§ 236, 

237, subd. (a)—count 1), one count of making criminal threats (id., § 422—

count 2), and one count of assault by force likely to produce great bodily 

injury (id., § 245, subd. (a)(4)—count 3). The petition also alleged a firearm 

enhancement as to each count. (Id., §§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1), 12022, subd. 

(a)(1).) 

1 This appeal is appropriately resolved by Memorandum Opinion 

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 
2

Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, minor pleaded no contest to false 

imprisonment by violence (count 1) and assault by force likely to produce 

great bodily injury (count 3). He additionally admitted a personal firearm 

use enhancement as to count 1. The negotiated disposition specified that 

upon successful termination of probation, count 1, as well as the attached 

enhancement, would be dismissed nunc pro tunc. After the minor 

successfully completed probation, the juvenile court granted the prosecution’s 

motion to dismiss the firearm enhancement. Minor’s sole issue on appeal is 

that the dismissal should have been as to count 1 in its entirety. The 

Attorney General agrees and concedes error.2

“Plea bargains are ‘an accepted and “integral component of the criminal 

justice system and essential to the expeditious and fair administration of our 

courts.” ’ (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 929. . . .) Plea bargaining 

is a common feature in juvenile delinquency proceedings, just as it is in 

criminal proceedings in adult court. Similar principles apply in both settings. 

(See, e.g., In re Kenneth H. (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 143, 148 . . . [‘ “It is well 

settled that a plea bargain is a tripartite agreement which requires the 

consent of the defendant, the People and the court.” ’]; In re Jermaine B. 

(1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 634, 639 . . . [‘ “Plea bargaining is an accepted practice 

in our criminal justice system.” ’].)

“A plea bargain is a contract between the accused and the prosecutor. 

(People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506, 533. . . .) Both these parties are 

bound to the terms of the agreement; when the court approves the bargain, it 

also agrees to be bound by its terms. (People v. Armendariz (1993) 

2 That the prosecutor’s motion was limited to dismissal of the count 1 

enhancement appears to have been inadvertent. Minor’s counsel’s failure to 

point out that the motion should have been as to count 1 in its entirety, 

likewise, appears to have been an unintentional oversight. 
3

16 Cal.App.4th 906, 911. . . .)” (In re Ricardo C. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 688, 

698.) 

Here, the agreement between the minor and the prosecution was set 

forth at the disposition hearing and memorialized in the court minutes. In 

pertinent part it was agreed that upon the minor’s successful completion of 

probation, the People would move to “dismiss Count 1 in its entirety, nunc 

pro tunc.” It is clear the prosecutor, defense counsel, and minor understood 

this to mean as a result of the minor’s pleading no contest to counts 1 and 3, 

admitting the personal use firearm enhancement as to count 1, and 

successful completion of probation, count 1 would be dismissed in its entirety. 

In short, the dismissal of count 1 was a mutually binding component of the 

negotiated agreement. 

Further, the record shows the district attorney agreed to the 

disposition, the minor admitted to the allegations in the petition, the juvenile 

court accepted the agreement and ordered the agreed-upon disposition, and 

the minor successfully completed probation. Thus, all conditions having been 

fulfilled, the minor was entitled to the benefit of his plea agreement.

That the parties inadvertently neglected to ask that count 1 be 

dismissed in its entirety does not, as the Attorney General acknowledges, 

deprive minor of the benefit of his plea deal. (See In re Greg F. (2012) 

55 Cal.4th 393, 415 [minor has a “constitutional right to the benefit of his 

completed plea bargain”]; V.C. v. Superior Court (2009) 173 Cal.App.4th

1455, 1465–1466 [same], disapproved on other grounds as stated in Greg F., 

at p. 415; People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 864 [“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 [a] defendant is waiving 
4

implementation of the consideration that induced him to waive his 

constitutional rights.”].)

DISPOSITION

The juvenile court’s order vacating wardship is reversed to allow the 

trial court to dismiss count 1 in its entirety. In all other respects, the order is 

affirmed.
5

_________________________

Banke, J.

We concur:

_________________________

Humes, P.J.

_________________________

Langhorne Wilson, J.

A167604, People v. D.P.