holding repeal of criminal statute requires 20 dismissal of pending criminal proceedings charging such conduct
How later courts described this case
- holding repeal of criminal statute requires 20 dismissal of pending criminal proceedings charging such conduct
- allowing a party to rescind a plea agreement when a subsequent change in the law deprives it of the benefit of its bargain
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by People v. Brown, 193 Cal. App. 3d 957 (1987)
[4] The Supreme Court's decision in People v. Collins, supra, 21 Cal.3d 208, casts some doubt on the continuing vitality of the Serrato distinction.
Disagreed with by People v. Gonzalez, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 533 (2016)
We disagree with the Second District, which recently held Collins "addressed head on the question of what happens when a change in law deprives *1073either the People or the defendant of the benefit of the bargain of the plea agreement.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Harris v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 1 Cal. 5th 984 (2016)
Collins, supra, 21 Cal.3d 208, is distinguishable both substantively and procedurally.
Distinguished by People v. Brown, 198 Cal. Rptr. 3d 789 (2016)
) Because Proposition 47 does not have such an effect, Collins is inapplicable.5 (Harris v. Superior Court, supra, 242 Cal.App.4th at p. 262, 195 Cal.Rptr.3d 3 (dis. opn. of Mosk, J.) ["Unlike in Collins, petitioner here does not 'escape from vulnerability to sentence' [citation], for he remains convicted and his punishment is simply reduced."].
Distinguished by People v. Bolton, 192 Cal. App. 4th 541 (2011)
We therefore reject Bolton’s contention that Collins provides support for his position that he may not be sentenced to a lengthier sentence after any successful appeal from any conviction, even if the additional sentence is based on a new conviction that was not at issue in the appeal.
Distinguished by People v. Romanoski, 157 Cal. App. 3d 353 (1984)
Collins, supra, 21 Cal.3d 208, cited by appellant, are inapposite to those in the case at bench.
The opinion
CLARK, J.
I dissent from reversal of the judgment, and from part I of the majority opinion, for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in People v. Rossi (1976) 18 Cal.3d 295, 304-307 [ 134 Cal.Rptr. 64 , 555 P.2d 1313 ].
Bird, C. J., concurred.