What is the consequence of the plea deputy's failure to specifically identify the remaining cases in the plea agreement?

The People acknowledge the plea deputy should have specifically identified the pending cases he intended to include in the agreement, but they argue such an oversight should not bind the People to a deal with no meeting of the minds. However, we do not agree with the People's characterization of the circumstances. This is not an instance of ambiguity and no meeting of the minds; this is an instance where there was an insufficient effort within the district attorney's office to identify the totality of the charges pending against defendant. Under these circumstances, we ask the People to honor their commitment. (Santobello v. New York (1971) 404 U.S. 257, 260-262 [30 L.Ed.2d 427, 432-433] (Santobello).) The trial court found that the phrase "[r]emaining cases" in the plea agreement included the felony narcotics and firearms charges.

Due process applies to the implementation of a plea bargain and violation of a bargain raises a constitutional right to a remedy. (People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855, 860.) The remedy should redress the harm without prejudicing either party or curtailing a court's normal sentencing discretion. (Ibid.) A trial court has discretion to decide whether specific performance or withdrawal of a plea is the appropriate remedy

Page 5