A defendant cannot withdraw the plea because of buyers remorse In re Brown 1973

A defendant cannot withdraw the plea because of

This preview shows page 18 - 21 out of 30 pages.

day of trial was not involuntary when the offer had been available for months].) A defendant cannot withdraw the plea because of “buyer’s remorse.” ( In re Brown (1973) 9 Cal.3d 679, 686; People v. Knight (1987) 194 Cal.App.3d 337, 344.) “The rule that a plea must be intelligently made to be valid does not require that a plea be vulnerable to later attack if the defendant did not correctly assess every relevant factor entering into his decision. A defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers long after the plea has been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State's
Image of page 18
19 case or the likely penalties attached to alternative courses of action.” ( Brady v. United States (1970) 397 U.S. 742, 757.) A “plea’s validity may not be collaterally attacked merely because the defendant made what turned out, in retrospect, to be a poor deal. See Brady, 397 U.S., at 757; Mabry v. Johnson , 467 U.S. 504, 508 (1984). Rather, the shortcomings of the deal . . . cast doubt on the validity of his plea only if they show either that he made the unfavorable plea on the constitutionally defective advice of counsel, see Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258, 267 (1973), or that he could not have understood the terms of the plea bargain . . . . ” ( Bradshaw v. Stumpf (2005) 545 U.S. 175, 186.) b. Misrepresentations If the defendant can prove the court did not properly advise him or her of the constitutional rights and the direct consequences of the plea, and the defendant can show he or she would not have pled had there been a proper advisement, the remedy is to permit the defendant to withdraw the plea. ( People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1020, 1022- 1023.) A plea is coerced because of an illusory promise. ( People v. Collins (2001) 26 Cal.4th 297, 309; People v. Lamb (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 664; People v. Hollins (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 567, 571-575; People v. Bowie (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 1263; People v. Truman (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 1816, 1820-1821.) c. Improper plea agreements Admission to the delinquency petition was erroneously compelled when the minor did so in order to be placed on informal probation because an admission was not statutorily required for the program. ( Ricki J. v. Superior Court (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 783, 792.) A plea was invalid when the judge actively negotiated the plea bargain to the extent that the defendant believed he could not receive a fair trial. ( People v. Weaver (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 131, 146-148; but see People v. Dixon (2007) 153 Cal.App.4th 985, 993 [promise of the court to consider an early plea as a factor in mitigation was not coercive since defendant did not plead until later].) A plea bargain requiring defendant to go to Iraq was void. ( Alhusainy v. Superior Court (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 385, 391-393.) d. Lack of a knowing and intelligent waiver of rights A court can rely heavily on the defendant’s statements when he entered the plea that
Image of page 19
20 he understood and the trial court’s findings that the defendant’s plea was made knowingly and voluntarily. ( Blackledge v. Allison (1977) 431 U.S. 63, 74.) Defendant was allowed to withdraw his plea because of late discovery which materially changed the outlook of the case. ( In re Miranda (2008) 43 Cal.4th 541, 575-582 [prosecution withheld Brady material that another person confessed to the murder and was
Image of page 20
Image of page 21

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture