Although the Royal Court did not expressly consider these factors, they clearly weigh the accused`s favour. King is not the first case in North Carolina to order some performance to remedy a prosecutor`s offense. See.B. State v. Rodriguez, 111 N.C. Around 141 (1993) (The prosecutor broke the promise not to take a position on the conviction; ordered a new criminal hearing at which the state should not take a position on the conviction). What is new to King is that this is the first case to deal with the return of the money when the exact money seized has been paid to other authorities. King clarifies that these circumstances do not preclu her performance. Since the appeal sought by the residents of Kaanehe would not have bound the judge and therefore would not have expressed the same concerns, Johnson did not control in that case.
Nevertheless, other factors – the apparently deliberate and deliberate nature of the offence and the considerable possibility that a particular benefit would not fully repair the damage caused by the offence – led us to conclude that Kaanehe`s accused should be able to withdraw his admission of guilt. It is true that a judge should not be forced to accept the criminal restrictions agreed upon by the prosecutor and the accused. (See People v. Johnson, supra, 10 Cal.3d 868, 873.) However, it is also true that this court ordered the enforcement of limitations with respect to the length of the sentence. In People v. Flores, supra, 6 Cal.3d 305, the accused entered a guilty plea to a charge of theft. There were also charges that the accused was armed with a lethal weapon at the time of the robbery. In his closing argument, a further 14 counts were dismissed.
At the time, the theft was punishable by up to five years in prison. Finding that the accused used a firearm in the commission of a burglary led to an additional five-year mandatory sentence. (Id., 309.) However, when the accused entered his plea, he was informed that his maximum sentence would be only five years for life. First, we look at the real circumstances that underlie this case. On November 2, 1976, the accused pleaded guilty to endangering the life or health of a child. (Pen. Code, 273a, sub-d. (1); all other legal references are to this code.) The trial was suspended and the accused was given a suspended sentence. The accused appeals when he invokes a judgment that sentences him to the state prison, after his parole, after admitting a violation of the conditions of probation. He also called for the release of this judgment by the letter of Habeas Corpus. Relief is sought in both appeals because the accused`s prison sentence is contrary to a plea that expressly excludes such an order.
The people recognize that the plea has been so violated and that the verdict must therefore be set aside. Therefore, the only dispute is the nature of the discharge to which the defendant is entitled.