Plea bargains: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:35, 25 May 2025

Redirect to:

Plea bargain

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+#REDIRECT [[Plea bargain]]
-==Judge withdrawing approval==
-People v. Pixley  [https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E075758.PDF]
-“While plea bargaining offers an intelligent and economically necessary solution to the practical problems which arise in the administration of the criminal justice system, plea bargains themselves should not offend the fundamental notions of justice and criminal liability and accountability which underlie that system. Moreover, the practical benefits of plea bargaining should never outweigh the public's interest in the vigorous prosecution of the accused, the imposition of appropriate punishment, and the protection of victims of crimes.”  People v. Cardoza (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 40, 43:
-Clark v. Superior 2005 WL 2375165 F047630
-Since Mikhail involved a plea to a lesser included offense, that court had no occasion to discuss the effect of section 1192.1 et seq. on lesser related offenses. Accordingly, we construe that court's reference to “an unconditional plea to a lesser offense or degree than that originally charged” (Mikhail, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at p. 857) as alluding to an unconditional plea to a lesser included offense.
-We note that here, unlike in Mikhail, the prosecutor did not object to the court's rejection of the plea. (See Mikhail, supra, 13 Cal.App.4th at pp. 851-852.)
-People v. Martinez, F050714
-People v. Drummond, A119118
-People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921
-People v. Cardoza (1984) 161 Cal.App.3d 40
-People v. Orin (1975) 13 CaL.3d 937
-People v. Thomas, A097987

Plea bargains: Difference between revisions

Latest revision as of 02:35, 25 May 2025

Navigation menu

Search