(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)The California Supreme Court held in Doe v. Harris (2013) 57 Cal.4th 64 that, as a general rule, plea agreements are deemed to incorporate the reserve power of the state to amend the law or enact additional laws for the public good and in pursuance of public policy. That the parties enter into a plea agreement does not have the effect of insulating them from changes in the law that the Legislature has intended to apply to
them.
(2)In Boykin v. Alabama (1969) 395 U.S. 238, the United States Supreme Court held that because of the significant constitutional rights at stake in entering a guilty plea, due process requires that a defendant’s guilty plea be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
(3)Waiver is the voluntary, intelligent, and intentional relinquishment of a known right or privilege (Estelle v. Smith (1981) 451 U.S. 454, 471, fn. 16, quoting Johnson v. Zerbst (1938) 304 U.S. 458, 464). Waiver requires knowledge that the right exists (Taylor v. U.S. (1973) 414 U.S. 17, 19).
(4)A plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive unknown future
benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may occur after the date of the plea is not knowing and intelligent.
(b)A provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate decisions, or other changes in the law that may retroactively apply after
the date of the plea is void as against public policy.
(c)For purposes of this section, “plea bargain” has the same meaning as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 1192.7.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
25
cases (
16 in the last 5 years), 2020–2026 · leading case:
People v. Barton, 266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
People v. Barton, 266 Cal. Rptr. 3d 742 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “) (Assembly Bill 1618), which added Penal Code section 1016.8. As of January 1, 2020, “[a] provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of legislative enactments … that may retroactively apply after the date of the plea is void as…”
(HC)Gilmore v. Hill, No. 3:20-cv-02230 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2022).
· cites it 7× “) Petitioner 23 alleges that his 1991 plea agreement violates California Penal Code § 1016.8 24 and was not made voluntarily because he was not advised that the Three 25 Strikes Law could apply to his prior convictions.”
Collier v. Hill, No. 4:24-cv-07096 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2025).
· cites it 7× “75 and because Cal. Penal Code § 1016.8 applied to two of his 18 strike priors.”
Gary Eugene Sasser v. Craig Koenig, No. 2:21-cv-01396 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2021).
· cites it 6× “The claims in the Petition appear to be based on Petitioner’s claimed right to the protections of California Penal Code § 1016.8, effective January 1, 2020, which provides in relevant part that “[a] provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future…”
(HC)Gilmore v. Hill, No. 3:20-cv-02230 (S.D. Cal. July 19, 2022).
· cites it 6× “9 Petitioner contends that the limitations period instead commenced on January 1, 10 2020, because “the legal significance of the 1991 plea bargain could not [have] reasonably 11 been know[n] to Petitioner” until California Penal Code Section 1016.8 was enacted.”
Mendoza v. Koenig, No. 3:21-cv-05045 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2022).
· cites it 5× “Notwithstanding what the “California law” 7 “cite[s],” multiple courts have held that California Penal Code Section 1016.8 cannot give rise to a 8 federal habeas claim because it is a state law.”
Sawyer v. Burton, No. 3:21-cv-00058 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021).
· cites it 4× “) In Ground Two, Petitioner asserts a federal due process violation arising from the 6 state court denial of modification of his judgment and refusal to dismiss his prior 7 convictions based on breach of contract, citing Cal. Penal Code § 1016.8 and the Fifth and 8 Fourteenth…”
People v. Hill, No. B305205 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 25, 2020). · cites it 2× “The minute order states, “[The] court has received, read, and considered the defendant’s notice of motion and motion for modification of sentence based [on] newly enacted Penal Code section 1016.8(a)(4). [¶] Penal Code section 1016.”
People v. Mitchell, No. B309107 (Cal. Ct. App. July 23, 2021). · cites it 2× “Prior to the plea, the trial court gave the standard advisement of rights and informed Mitchell of the consequences 1 Penal Code section 1016.8, subdivision (b) states “A provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future benefits of legislative…”
(HC) Hunter-Harrison v. Atchley, No. 2:20-cv-00592 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 9, 2020).
· cites it 2× “First, petitioner 6 contends that his plea is void pursuant to California Penal Code § 1016.8 because it is against 7 public policy.”
Terry L. Slaughter v. People of the State of California, No. 2:20-cv-01552 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2020).
· cites it 2× “1618 (enacting California Penal Code section 1016.8), which provides in 5 relevant part: 6 A plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive unknown 7 future benefits of legislative enactments, initiatives, appellate 8 decisions, or other changes in the law that may…”
Cal. Penal Code § 1016.8(a)(4): 1 case
Cal. Penal Code § 1016.8(b): 2 cases
Gary Eugene Sasser v. Craig Koenig, No. 2:21-cv-01396 (C.D. Cal. July 22, 2021).
“The claims in the Petition appear to be based on Petitioner’s claimed right to the protections of California Penal Code § 1016.8, effective January 1, 2020, which provides in relevant part that “[a] provision of a plea bargain that requires a defendant to generally waive future…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.