In People v. Orin (1975) 13 Cal.3d 937, the California Supreme Court explained: "The process of plea bargaining which has received statutory and judicial authorization as an appropriate method of disposing of criminal prosecutions contemplates an agreement negotiated by the People and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he or she were convicted of all offenses charged. This more lenient disposition of the charges is secured in part by prosecutorial consent to the imposition of such clement punishment citation, by the People's acceptance of a plea to a lesser offense than that charged, either in degree or kind, or by the prosecutor's dismissal of one or more counts of a multi-count indictment or information. Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the 'bargain' worked out by the defense and prosecution. But implicit in all of this is a process of 'bargaining' between the adverse parties to the case--the People represented by the prosecutor on one side, the defendant represented by his or her counsel on the other--which bargaining results in an agreement between them." (Id. at pp. 942-943.) "However, the court has no authority to substitute itself as the representative of the People in the negotiation process and under the guise of 'plea bargaining' to 'agree' to a disposition of the case over prosecutorial objection." (Orin, supra, 13 Cal.3d at p. 943.)