Legal Opinion

People v. Crandell

California Supreme Court

Decided April 30, 2007No. S134883PublishedCited by 12 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

WERDEGAR, J.

The trial court imposed on defendant a restitution fine of $2,600 that had not been mentioned by the prosecutor when he recited the parties’ plea agreement. Defendant contends imposition of the fine violated his plea bargain and he therefore is entitled, pursuant to People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 [1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902, 819 P.2d 861] (Walker), to have the fine reduced to the statutory minimum of $200. (See Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1); Walker, at p. 1029.) We conclude the error that occurred in Walker did not occur here. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Santobello v. New YorkSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
  2. People v. WalkerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1991
  3. People v. ManchenoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1982
  4. People v. McClellanCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993
  5. In Re MoserCalifornia Supreme Court · 1993

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. People v. VillalobosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  2. People v. WilenCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
  3. People v. RiddlesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2017
  4. People v. VillalobosCalifornia Supreme Court · 2012
  5. The People v. CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2013

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API