California Supreme Court holds that trial court may not modify material term of plea agreement granting probation without both parties’ consent

By: Wallin & Klarich

It was alleged that on May 29, 2005, Defendant Luis Gregorio Segura inflicted corporal injury upon his spouse, a serious or violent three-strikes felony within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law. Segura negotiated with the prosecutor a plea of no contest to the present charge in exchange for which a prior conviction allegation for felony battery, also a serious or violent felony within the meaning of the Three Strikes law, would be dismissed. Pursuant to the plea deal, he was to be placed on probation on the condition, among other things, that he serves 365 days in county jail.

Prior to entering his plea, Segura waived his constitutional rights and acknowledged that if he was not a citizen of the United States; the one-year term would qualify the offense as an “aggravated felony” under federal law and require his deportation. After Segura was released from jail, federal authorities initiated deportation proceedings. Thereafter, Segura applied to the trial court to ‘reduce’ his jail term to 360 days, in order to avoid deportation.

The California Supreme Court held when probation is granted conditioned upon a specified jail term, the resulting period of incarceration constitutes a material term of the parties’ agreement. As such, the jail term is not subject to subsequent modification without the consent of both parties, and cannot be altered solely on the basis of the trial court’s general statutory authority to modify probation during a probationary period.

If you have been charged with a crime, you need an attorney who is aware of all the consequences that may arise from a conviction. The San Bernardino criminal defense attorneys at Wallin & Klarich will fight on your behalf to ensure the best possible outcome for your case. Call us at 888-749-0034 and visit us at

Posted In: Criminal Defense