In guilty plea cases involving a grant of probation, probation conditions cannot be based solely on dismissed counts unless the defendant agrees to them or unless there is a transactional relationship between the charges to which the defendant pled and the facts of the dismissed charges. The question before the Supreme Court was whether People v. Harvey (1979) 25 Cal.3d 754 applies to the imposition of probation conditions based on the facts of a dismissed count, or whether it is limited to the imposition of prison sentences. The court held Harvey also applies to the imposition of probation conditions. (Approving People v. Beagle (2004) 125 Cal.App.4th 415.) Central to the holding in Harvey is that a “deal is a deal.” And a material term of a plea agreement cannot be modified by the court based on its general statutory authority without consent of the parties. (See People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921.) But in this case, the court did not violate the Harvey rule by imposing probation conditions relating to the dismissed domestic violence count. The court said it intended to impose domestic violence probation conditions. When defense counsel objected, the court said it would set aside the plea. Defense counsel and the defendant then discussed the matter, and the defendant expressly agreed to the probation terms. Due to the defendant’s express agreement, the domestic violence probation conditions were validly imposed.