In People v. Punchard (1980) 103 Cal.App.3d 995, Division 5 of the Second District Court of Appeal sought to set limits on the scope of a per se reversal rule enunciated by the Supreme Court in People v. Hill (1974) 12 Cal.3d 731, and elaborated upon in People v. Rios (1976) 16 Cal.3d 351, for cases where an erroneous failure to suppress illegally obtained evidence was followed by a guilty plea, in recognition of the difficulty of assessing prejudice on the record of such cases. The Punchard court distinguished People v. Hill (1974) and People v. Rios (1976) on the ground that in those cases "the product of the illegal search was part and parcel of the crime charged and to which defendant entered his plea through the bargaining process," whereas in the case before it the charges involving items discovered in the illegal search had been dismissed pursuant to the plea bargain. ( People v. Punchard, supra , 103 Cal.App.3d at p. 999.) The court noted language in Hill observing that it appeared the evidence which should have been suppressed was not "'. . . unconnected to the murder or . . . irrelevant to the prosecution's case against defendants. . . . '" ( Id. , at p. 998.) Therefore, "because of the complete severability of the count pled to from those which were contaminated," the appellate court held that the harmless error rule should be applied and concluded that "defendant had pled guilty to a count to which there appeared no conceivable defense and to which the error in failing to suppress had no connection and no effect." ( Id. , at p. 999.) In Punchard , the defendant pled guilty to one count of receiving a stolen mink bedspread in return for the dismissal of two other identical charges relating to items discovered pursuant to a search warrant whose validity had been erroneously upheld by the trial court. The bedspread had been recovered by police before the illegal search took place.