Opinion ID: 839431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: the ibarra decision

Text: In Ibarra, it was alleged that the petitioner participated in an armed robbery. Initially, he was charged with robbery by use of a firearm and six counts of assault with intent to commit murder. The prosecutor made a package-deal plea offer to defendant and his two codefendants, which required all three men to plead guilty of robbery while armed and assault with a deadly weapon. In exchange for their guilty pleas, the men would be sentenced to a five-year term of imprisonment. This sentence was considerably lower than the maximum the men could have received if convicted as charged. The accused accepted the package deal and pleaded guilty. Thereafter, petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the package deal was coercive. He claimed that he was innocent and had pleaded guilty only from fear that the other men would harm him if he did not accept the package-deal offer. The California Supreme Court concluded that package deals are not intrinsically coercive, [7] but a given package deal might be coercive depending on the facts of the case. [8] It explained: `Package-deal' plea bargains . . . may approach the line of unreasonableness. Extraneous factors not related to the case or the prosecutor's business may be brought into play. For example, a defendant may fear that his wife will be prosecuted and convicted if he does not plead guilty; or, a defendant may fear, as alleged in this case, that his codefendant will attack him if he does not plead guilty. Because such considerations do not bear any direct relation to whether the defendant himself is guilty, special scrutiny must be employed to ensure a voluntary plea. . . . [ [9] ] The California Supreme Court decided that the only way to ensure that defendants were not coerced by package deals into pleading guilty was to impose a new duty on trial courts. [10] In those cases involving package-deal plea agreements, it concluded, the trial court must conduct an inquiry into the totality of the circumstances surrounding the agreement before deciding whether to accept the plea. [11] The California Supreme Court directed trial courts to consider the following factors: (1) The inducement for the plea. The likelihood of coercion is greater if the prosecutor misrepresents facts to the party promised leniency or does not have a good-faith case against him or her. [12] (2) The factual basis for the plea. If the facts show that the defendant is not guilty or has a reasonable defense, it is less likely that the plea is the product of the defendant's free will. [13] (3) The nature and degree of coerciveness. If the party promised leniency is a close friend or family member whom the defendant feels compelled to help, the pressure may be sufficient to create an involuntary plea. [14] Impermissible coercion possibly exists, also, if a third party threatened harm to the defendant or a loved one in the event the defendant does not plead guilty. (4) Whether the promise of leniency to a third party is a significant consideration in the defendant's choice to plead guilty. [15] In those cases where the evidence against the defendant is overwhelming, the promise of leniency likely plays a lesser role in the decision to plead guilty. [16] (5) Other relevant factors including the age of the defendant, which party initiated the plea negotiations, and whether a third party was charged first. [17]