Unless otherwise provided by law, every plea shall be entered or withdrawn by the defendant himself or herself in open court. No plea of guilty of a felony for which the maximum punishment is death, or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, shall be received from a defendant who does not appear with counsel, nor shall that plea be received without the consent of the defendant’s counsel. No plea of guilty of a felony for which the maximum punishment is not death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole shall be accepted from any defendant who does not appear with counsel unless the court shall first fully inform him or her of the right to counsel and unless the court shall find that the defendant understands the right to counsel and freely waives it, and then only if the defendant has expressly stated in open court, to the court, that he or she does not wish to be represented by counsel. On application of the defendant at any time before judgment or within six months after an order granting probation is made if entry of judgment is suspended, the court may, and in case of a defendant who appeared without counsel at the time of the plea the court shall, for a good cause shown, permit the plea of guilty to be withdrawn and a plea of not guilty substituted. Upon indictment or information against a corporation a plea of guilty may be put in by counsel. This section shall be liberally construed to effect these objects and to promote justice.
Notes of Decisions
Luis Ballinas-Lucero v. Merrick Garland, 44 F.4th 1169 (9th Cir. 2022).
· cites it 11× “Ballinas-Lucero moved the Superior Court, through counsel and pursuant to Cal. Penal Code § 1018 , to withdraw his guilty pleas and set aside his convictions.”
People v. Miracle, 430 P.3d 847 (Cal. 2018).
· cites it 3× “The court further stated that if it granted a Faretta motion and appointed advisory counsel, "I can condition the appointment of advisory counsel on compliance with *393 Penal Code Section 1018 which requires consent of that advisory counsel.”
People v. Superior Court of Yolo Cnty., 10 Cal. App. 5th 1316 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “They primarily base their finality argument on the interplay between two statutes, Penal Code section 1018, which addresses when a guilty plea may be withdrawn, and Penal Code section 1237, which delineates when a criminal defendant may appeal.”
People v. Vivar, 485 P.3d 425 (Cal. 2021).
“, Pen. Code, § 1018 [a trial court “may” permit a defendant to withdraw a plea “for a good cause shown”]) — and argued that denial of the motion should be reviewed deferentially for abuse of discretion.”
In re Vargas, 2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8004 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “) *1142 Penal Code section 1018 permits the withdrawal of a plea.”
People v. Turner, 118 Cal. Rptr. 2d 99 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “) Here, Penal Code section 1018 expressly authorized defendant to move to withdraw his plea "at any time before judgment.”
People v. Palmer, 313 P.3d 512 (Cal. 2013).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 1018; People v. Chad, supra, at p.”
People v. Chadd, 621 P.2d 837 (Cal. 1981).
· cites it 2× “245; Pen. Code, § 1018.) Over 30 years ago the Legislature deemed it necessary to impose special precautions against ill-advised guilty pleas, drawing a distinction according to the severity of the potential punishment.”
In Re Tahl, 460 P.2d 449 (Cal. 1969).
· cites it 2× “(Pen. Code, § 1018; In re Johnson (1965) 62 Cal.”
State v. Wagner, 752 P.2d 1136 (Or. 1988).
· cites it 2× “) West's Ann Cal Penal Code § 1018. Oregon has no statute forbidding a plea of guilty in a capital case.”
People v. Frierson, 705 P.2d 396 (Cal. 1985).
· cites it 2× “2d 837 ] in which we held that, by virtue of a specific statutory provision (Pen. Code, § 1018), a plea of guilty to a capital offense requires the concurrence of both the defendant and his counsel.”
People v. Nance, 1 Cal. App. 4th 1453 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 2× “At the conclusion of the hearing the court denied the motion and returned the case for pronouncement of judgment in the superior court.”
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.