People v. West
91 Cal. Rptr. 385, 477 P.2d 409, 3 Cal.3d 595 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court has jurisdiction to accept a bargained-for plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense that is not a necessarily included offense of the one originally charged, provided the offense is reasonably related to the defendant's conduct. To ensure validity and facilitate review, the terms of the plea bargain must be fully disclosed to the court and become part of the official record.
Facts:
- On October 18, 1967, Officer Pruden of the Mountain View Police Department found defendant West sleeping in a parked car.
- The officer woke West, who explained he had borrowed the car and slept in it to avoid disturbing his host.
- When the officer asked for identification, West replied that he had lost his wallet but had letters bearing his name in the car's trunk.
- West and the officer went to the rear of the car, and West opened the trunk.
- According to Officer Pruden's testimony, West handed him a shoebox-like container and said, "The papers are in here. You can take whatever you want."
- While looking through the box, the officer found a brown paper bag, opened it, and discovered two plastic packets containing marijuana.
Procedural Posture:
- West was charged in superior court with possession of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11530).
- West filed a motion to suppress the marijuana evidence, which the superior court denied.
- Pursuant to a plea bargain with the district attorney, West pleaded nolo contendere to the uncharged offense of maintaining a place for the use or sale of a narcotic (Health & Saf. Code, § 11557).
- The superior court accepted the plea and entered a judgment of conviction.
- West (appellant) appealed the conviction to the Court of Appeal, challenging the earlier denial of his motion to suppress.
- The Court of Appeal, acting on its own motion, reversed the conviction, holding that the superior court lacked jurisdiction to accept a plea to an offense that was not a lesser included offense of the one charged.
- The California Supreme Court granted a hearing to review the Court of Appeal's decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court have jurisdiction to accept a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to an offense that is not a necessarily included offense of the crime charged in the accusatory pleading, when the plea is part of a bargain with the prosecution?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes, a trial court has jurisdiction to accept such a plea. The court held that plea bargaining is a critical and legitimate part of the criminal justice system and that a plea is not involuntary merely because it is induced by a promise of a lesser charge. The court abandoned the rule limiting pleas to necessarily included offenses, reasoning that a defendant who knowingly and voluntarily pleads to a different offense cannot claim a lack of notice, which is the due process concern underlying the traditional rule. Instead, the court established that a plea to any lesser offense is permissible so long as it is reasonably related to the defendant's conduct underlying the original charge. Finally, to eliminate the secrecy that previously surrounded the practice, the court mandated that all plea bargains must be fully disclosed in open court and entered into the case record.
Analysis:
This landmark decision formally legitimized the practice of plea bargaining in California, transforming it from a covert, 'sub rosa' process into an officially sanctioned and regulated part of the criminal justice system. By replacing the rigid 'necessarily included offense' doctrine with a more flexible 'reasonably related' standard, the court significantly expanded the scope of permissible plea agreements, giving prosecutors and defense attorneys greater latitude. Most importantly, the court's mandate that all plea bargains be placed on the record created a crucial procedural safeguard, enhancing transparency, accountability, and the ability of appellate courts to review the voluntariness and fairness of such agreements.
Unlock the full brief for People v. West