Does the Defendant have jurisdiction to set aside the original plea agreement or to accept the second plea agreement?

We reject that contention because the court was not without jurisdiction either to set aside the original plea agreement or to accept the second plea agreement and to enter defendant's guilty plea. Defendant fails to distinguish between lack of fundamental jurisdiction and an act in excess of a court's jurisdiction. "A lack of jurisdiction in its fundamental or strict sense results in an entire absence of power to hear or determine the case, an absence of authority over the subject matter or the parties. [Citation.] On the other hand, a court may have jurisdiction in the strict sense but nevertheless lack jurisdiction (or power) to act except in a particular manner, or to give certain kinds of relief, or to act without the occurrence of certain procedural prerequisites. [Citation.] When a court fails to conduct itself in the manner prescribed, it is said to have acted in excess of jurisdiction." (People v. Lara (2010) 48 Cal.4th 216, 224-225, internal quotation marks omitted.) While an act which is beyond the court's fundamental jurisdiction is void ab initio, an act in excess of jurisdiction is valid until it is set aside, and "parties may be precluded from setting it aside by such things as waiver, estoppel, or the passage of time." (Id. at p. 225, internal quotation marks omitted.) Here, the court had jurisdiction over the subject matter and over the parties. Accordingly, even if the

Page 9