People v. Kannehe

In People v. Kannehe (1977) 19 Cal.3d 1, it was the prosecution who desired specific performance of the plea bargain. Rejecting that request, the California Supreme Court explained that "specific enforcement of a plea bargain agreement is actually a broad term covering several different types of relief. The remedy differs depending upon the nature of the breach and which party is seeking specific enforcement. When the breach is a refusal by the prosecutor to comply with the agreement, specific enforcement would consist of an order directing the prosecutor to fulfill the bargain. When the breach is a refusal by the court to sentence in accord with the agreed upon recommendation, specific enforcement would entail an order directing the judge to resentence the defendant in accord with the agreement. The People as well as a defendant may seek such specific enforcements. The effect is to limit the remedy to an order directing fulfillment of the bargain." ( Kaanehe, supra , 19 Cal.3d 1, 13.) The Kaanehe court also makes the observation that "we have previously held that a defendant should not be entitled to enforce an agreement between himself and the prosecutor calling for a particular disposition against the trial court absent very special circumstances.... Specific enforcement of a particular agreed upon disposition must be strictly limited because it is not intended that a defendant and prosecutor be able to bind a trial court which is required to weigh the presentence report and exercise its customary sentencing discretion. Fn. omitted." ( Id ., at pp. 13-14.)