K.R. v. Superior Court (3rd Dist.): There is No Default Arbuckle Right in a Negotiated Disposition

Master K.R. was facing a WI 602 petition as well as a WI 707 petition.  While in front of one Judge Sapunor, K.R. and the prosecutor negotiated a disposition whereby K.R. would enter admissions on the condition that at the time of disposition, K.R. would be released from juvie and get on a plane to Las Vegas, to live with his mother.  K.R. entered his admission and Judge Sapunor continued the case for K.R. to get a plane ticket and for the probation department to prepare the necessary paperwork to transfer K.R.'s case to Nevada.

When K.R. returned to court for his disposition, one Judge Arguelles was on the bench.  Arguelles didn't like the proposed the disposition and instead intended to sent K.R. to California's Department of Juvenile Facilities.

K.R. understandably wanted to wait for Judge Sapunor to return so that K.R. could receive the disposition to which he, the prosecutor, and the probation department, had agreed was in K.R.'s best interest.  K.R. asserted he had a right, under People v Arbuckle., to have the judge that took his conditional admission, Judge Sapunor, preside over his disposition.  Judge Arguelles disagreed and K.R. filed a writ petition.

The Third District denies the petition holding that the right to have the judge who accepts a negotiated plea/admission in a criminal/juvenile matter (Arbuckle right) is not a default right of a negotiated plea.  Rather an Arbuckle right only arises if it is explicitly made a part of the negotiated disposition or if the judge who accepts the negotiated plea uses first-person pronouns during the proceedings that indicates to the defendant/ward an intent for that judge to preside at the sentencing.

The analysis in this opinion consists of examining case law to determine whether the California Supreme Court's decisions stand for the proposition that an Arbuckle right is created by default in every negotiated disposition or whether an Arbuckle right is created is dependent on the particular facts in each case.  The panel concludes the latter, and while they acknowledge that for years many other appellate courts and most trial courts have operated under the assumption an Arbuckle right is created in every negotiated disposition, they believe their analysis is correct and are not deterred by pragmatic considerations.

So K.R. can either have his disposition before Judge Arguelles or withdraw his admissions.

 As an aside, I hope Judge Arguelles has (had) occasion to tour the Department of Juvenile Facilities prior to sending any 15 year old boy there.