Opinion ID: 1453534
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Prior Cases

Text: 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. 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 [the 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 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.