Opinion ID: 1453534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Advisement of the Consequences of the Plea

Text: (2) As noted earlier, before taking a guilty plea the trial court must admonish the defendant of both the constitutional rights that are being waived and the direct consequences of the plea. ( Boykin v. Alabama, supra, 395 U.S. 238; In re Tahl, supra, 1 Cal.3d 122; Bunnell v. Superior Court, supra, 13 Cal.3d 592, 605; see generally People v. Wright (1987) 43 Cal.3d 487, 491-493 [233 Cal. Rptr. 69, 729 P.2d 260].) A possible $10,000 restitution fine constitutes such a direct consequence. Thus, before taking any guilty plea a trial court should advise the defendant of the minimum $100 and maximum $10,000 restitution fine. (3) Unlike the admonition of constitutional rights, however, advisement as to the consequences of a plea is not constitutionally mandated. Rather, the rule compelling such advisement is a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure. ( People v. Wright, supra, 43 Cal.3d at p. 495, citing In re Yurko (1974) 10 Cal.3d 857, 864 [112 Cal. Rptr. 513, 519 P.2d 561].) The nonconstitutional basis of the rule has two consequences pertinent to this case. 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 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: impose only the statutory minimum of $100, or give the defendant the option to withdraw the plea.