Not Explaining the Consequences of a Plea Bargain
The court held in People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, that a plea bargain which does not correspond to the defendant's expectations may come about either through:
(1) a violation of the plea agreement or (2) a failure to advise the defendant of the consequences of the plea. (Id. at p. 1020.)
"The nature of the rights involved and the consequences of a violation differ substantially" between the two forms of error. (Ibid.)
A violation of the plea agreement is not subject to harmless error analysis because it strikes at "'"the honor of the government, public confidence in the fair administration of justice, and the efficient administration of justice . . . " (Id. at p. 1026.)
A mere failure to advise the defendant of all the consequences of his plea, on the other hand, is subject to harmless error analysis because the requirement to advise the defendant of plea consequences "is not constitutionally mandated.
Rather, the rule compelling such advisement is 'a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure." (Id. at p. 1022.)
This type of error "is waived absent a timely objection." (Id. at p. 1023.)