# People v. Crandell

> California Supreme Court · April 30, 2007 · 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786997

## Case

- **Full name:** The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JEFFREY DAVID CRANDELL, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** April 30, 2007
- **Citations:** 57 Cal. Rptr. 3d 349; 40 Cal. 4th 1301; 2007 Daily Journal DAR 6059; 156 P.3d 364; 2007 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4748; 2007 Cal. LEXIS 4271
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baxter
- **Judges:** Werdegar, Baxter
- **Cited by:** 14 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786997

## Opinion text

BAXTER, J., Concurring.
The majority correctly holds that the imposition of a $2,600 restitution fine did not violate the plea bargain, because the record makes clear the parties negotiated no term contrary to the court’s action. Asked to “state the offered disposition,” the prosecutor described it *1311 clearly: Defendant would plead to a single count of robbery with use of a firearm, and would receive a sentence of 13 years, significantly below the legal maximum term he could otherwise suffer on this charge and enhancement. In turn, the People would dismiss a second robbery count, together with its related firearm enhancement.
The prosecutor mentioned no other terms. Neither defendant nor his counsel spoke up to say the prosecutor had omitted provisions or otherwise incompletely stated the agreement.
Then, before taking the plea, the court warned defendant he would “have to pay” a restitution fine between $200 and $10,000. Defendant acknowledged he understood. Neither he nor either counsel protested that the parties had agreed there would be only a minimum fine. Under such circumstances, we may readily infer the parties had made no bargain precluding the court from exercising its discretion as to the amount of the fine.
As the majority notes, the court also specifically asked defendant whether any other promises had been made to him, and he answered no. That dialogue obviously removed all possible doubt about the parties’ intent, and it seems good practice for trial courts to include such an inquiry in their “scripts” for taking negotiated pleas. However, I do not read the majority opinion as requiring such a question and answer, over and above the others presented on this record, before an appellate court may find the parties did not bargain for a limited fine.
The parties have an obligation to address all subjects they deem significant to the bargain, specifically including the amount of a restitution fine. (See People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024 [ 1 Cal.Rptr.2d 902 , 819 P.2d 861 ].) They have the further obligation to state their agreement fully on the record. They should not leave trial and appellate courts guessing about missing or unstated terms. If the record does not disclose any agreement, one way or the other, on a particular subject, there is no reason to assume a term favorable to the defendant. Thus, when (1) the parties, in stating their bargain for the record, have mentioned no agreement to limit the restitution fine, (2) the court warns that it will impose such a fine, and that the amount may be anywhere in the statutory range, (3) the defendant says he understands, and (4) neither the defendant nor counsel protests that such a fine would violate the bargain, it is most sensible to assume the parties made no agreement with respect to the fine, leaving it to the law and the court’s discretion upon proper advisement.
*1312 Accordingly, if a trial court has failed, for whatever reason, to ask specifically about “other promises” before imposing a substantial fine, that fact alone should not require an appellate court to invalidate the fine. I do not interpret the majority opinion to hold otherwise. On that basis, I join the majority’s reasoning and result.
Chin, J., and Corrigan, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9786997. Public record. Not legal advice.