Skip to content
Name: People v. Crandell
Case #: S134883
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 04/30/2007

Imposition of $2600 restitution fine did not violate the terms of the plea bargain where appellant was adequately advised that a restitution fine up to $10,000 would be imposed. The trial court imposed on appellant a restitution fine of $2600 which had not been mentioned by the prosecutor when he recited the plea agreement. (Although the trial court had advised appellant that he would have to pay a restitution fine between $200 and $10,000.) Appellant said he understood the consequences of his plea, and acknowledged that no other promises had been made. Appellant appealed, arguing that the trial court violated the plea agreement by imposing the $2600 fine, and the appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted appellant’s petition for review, which contended that the fine violated the plea agreement, and that appellant was entitled, pursuant to People v. Walker, to have the fine reduced to the statutory minimum of $200. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, concluding that the error which occurred in Walker did not occur here. In Walker, the defendant was advised only that a $10,000 fine was a “possible consequence” and imposed a fine which had never been mentioned in the plea bargain. Here, appellant was adequately advised of the range of the possible restitution fine, and that it would be imposed. Therefore, it is clear that when appellant entered his plea, he could not have reasonably understood his negotiated disposition to signify that no substantial restitution fine would be imposed.