P. v. Bautista
Filed 2/27/08 P. v. Bautista CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. DAVE BAUTISTA, Defendant and Respondent. | H030337 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC077189) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING PETITION FOR REHEARING |
BY THE COURT:
It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on January 29, 2008, be modified as follows:
On page 16, immediately prior to the section labeled Disposition, add the following paragraph:
In sum, Bautista II did not hold, as a matter of law, that there was a factual basis for a section 11360 offering-to-transport plea. The case merely concluded that the parties might have been able to establish such a basis. Since the trial courts order dismissing the case was driven by a misunderstanding of Bautista II, the judgment must be reversed. That said, neither this opinion nor Bautista II limits the scope of any future plea negotiations. On remand, the matter shall stand as it did following the decision in Bautista II--Dave shall be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea and the parties may negotiate any lawful bargain they choose.
There is no change in judgment. The petition for rehearing is denied.
Premo, J.
Elia, J. Rushing, P.J.
Publication courtesy of California pro bono lawyer directory.
Analysis and review provided by Chula Vista Property line Lawyers.
