## Facts

- Guy Thomas Stringham and associates believed Paul Snipes had stolen from them.
- The group beat and abducted Snipes; Stringham participated in the beating and handed a gun to another participant, who killed Snipes.
- The prosecution initially charged murder with special circumstances (kidnapping and torture), firearm allegations, assault counts, kidnapping, false imprisonment, and conspiracy.
- Due to evidentiary concerns (including anticipated unavailability of a detective who obtained Stringham’s confession), the prosecutor negotiated a disposition: amend the murder count to voluntary manslaughter; Stringham would plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter and kidnapping; remaining counts would be dismissed.
- At a December 12, 1986 hearing, the prosecutor informed the court a negotiated resolution had been reached.
- The victim’s family strongly opposed the bargain and accused the prosecutor and judge of bias; a different judge (Judge Buffington) was assigned for plea and sentencing-related proceedings.
- At a January 23, 1987 hearing, Snipes’s father addressed the court and urged rejection of the bargain, calling Stringham a “murderer”; the judge invited additional written comments for consideration in sentencing.
- At a January 30 hearing, both sides asked the court to accept the bargain; the prosecutor explained perceived difficulties in proving murder at trial.
- Judge Buffington declined to accept the plea agreement and ordered the case to proceed to trial.
- After jury trial, Stringham was convicted of second degree murder, kidnapping, and felony false imprisonment, and received consecutive sentences for murder and kidnapping.

## Issues

1. Whether a plea bargain previously accepted by one judge may be rejected by another judge before judgment, after sentencing-related proceedings begin and the victim’s next of kin objects.
2. Whether the victim’s next of kin may address the court to oppose a plea bargain under Penal Code § 1191.1, and whether such statements rendered the proceedings unconstitutional.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and consecutive sentences.
- The court held the trial court had authority to reject the negotiated plea before judgment, even if an earlier judge had indicated acceptance.
- The court held the victim’s next of kin could be heard on the appropriateness of the plea bargain under Penal Code § 1191.1.
- The father’s statement did not require reversal; there was no showing the judge relied on improper considerations or acted with bias, and no Eighth Amendment violation was established.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant has no vested right to enforcement of a negotiated disposition until judgment; prior to judgment, the court may withdraw approval and reject a plea bargain when the interests of justice warrant.
- Penal Code § 1191.1 authorizes a crime victim, or the victim’s next of kin, to express views during sentencing proceedings, including proceedings functionally connected to sentencing where a negotiated disposition would determine punishment.
- A trial judge is presumed capable of evaluating emotionally charged victim statements without allowing improper considerations to control the court’s legal determinations; reversal requires a concrete showing of prejudice or constitutional error.
- Imposition of consecutive sentences for murder and kidnapping is reviewed for abuse of discretion; affirmance is proper absent a demonstrated sentencing error.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Stringham’s convictions and consecutive sentences, holding that a trial judge may reject a previously accepted plea bargain before judgment and may allow a murder victim’s next of kin to oppose the bargain under Penal Code § 1191.1 without violating constitutional limits.


People v. Stringham, 206 Cal. App. 3d 184 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988)