## Facts

- Rammel Barao was charged with murder arising from an incident the prosecution tied to a robbery, along with two robbery counts and firearms-related offenses and allegations.
- According to the prosecution’s evidence, Barao approached the victim, Juan Carlos Lorenzo, at Lorenzo’s driver-side window and shot him in the head at close range; Lorenzo died.
- Before trial, Barao and the People jointly asked the court to approve a negotiated plea: the prosecutor would reduce the murder charge to voluntary manslaughter; Barao would plead guilty, admit personal gun use, and admit a prior felony conviction and prior prison term; and the parties would stipulate to a 41-year prison sentence.
- The trial court refused to accept the plea bargain and refused to approve amending the charging document to voluntary manslaughter, citing California Penal Code § 1192.7’s restrictions on plea bargaining in serious-felony cases.
- The case proceeded to jury trial. The jury convicted Barao of second-degree murder and found a firearm allegation true, but acquitted him of the two robbery counts.
- The trial court sentenced Barao to an aggregate term of 75 years to life in prison.
- On appeal, Barao challenged (1) the trial court’s refusal to approve the plea bargain and the related amendment, and (2) the trial court’s refusal to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense.

## Issues

1. Did Penal Code § 1192.7(a) bar the trial court from approving the proposed plea bargain and the related amendment reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter, absent proof of a statutory exception?
2. Did the trial court err by refusing to instruct the jury on involuntary manslaughter as a lesser included offense of murder?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to approve the negotiated disposition because § 1192.7(a) prohibits plea bargaining in serious-felony cases unless one of the statute’s narrow exceptions is shown on the record.
- None of the exceptions applied:
  - The “insufficient evidence” exception was not established because the pretrial record included evidence supporting the murder prosecution, including evidence Barao shot the victim in the head at close range without provocation.
  - The “material witness unavailable” exception was not established because there was no showing that testimony from a material witness could not be obtained.
  - The “no substantial change in sentence” exception was not established because the proposed 41-year determinate sentence materially differed from the ultimate 75-years-to-life sentence exposure and sentence imposed.
- The trial court also acted within its authority in refusing to permit the amendment to voluntary manslaughter where the amendment was proposed as part of an agreement barred by § 1192.7(a).
- The trial court did not err in refusing an involuntary-manslaughter instruction because there was no substantial evidence the killing was unintentional or the product of criminal negligence rather than an intentional shooting.

## Legal Principles

- Penal Code § 1192.7(a) restricts plea bargaining in “serious felony” cases; a court may not approve a plea bargain unless the record shows one of the statute’s specified exceptions.
- The statutory exceptions are limited to: (1) insufficient evidence to prove the prosecution’s case, (2) inability to obtain testimony of a material witness, or (3) a plea that would not result in a substantial change in sentence.
- A large reduction from a life-term outcome to a fixed determinate term is a “substantial change in sentence” that prevents reliance on the third exception.
- A trial court may deny a request to amend the charging document when the amendment is offered to implement a plea bargain the court lacks authority to approve under § 1192.7(a).
- A trial court must instruct on a lesser included offense only if there is substantial evidence from which a reasonable jury could convict on the lesser offense and acquit on the greater.
- Involuntary manslaughter requires evidence of an unintentional killing (for example, through criminal negligence or during a nonfelony unlawful act); evidence of a deliberate close-range shooting does not support that instruction.

## Conclusion

The Court of Appeal affirmed Barao’s convictions and sentence, holding that Penal Code § 1192.7(a) barred approval of the proposed voluntary-manslaughter plea bargain because none of the statute’s exceptions was shown, the related amendment was properly rejected as part of that barred deal, and the trial court correctly refused to instruct on involuntary manslaughter because the evidence did not support an unintentional killing theory.


People v. Barao, 218 Cal. App. 4th 769, 160 Cal. Rptr. 3d 506 (2013)