People v. Ramirez (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th 1501, defense counsel discovered a previously undisclosed supplemental police report after the defendant pleaded no contest to armed robbery and evading arrest in exchange for the dismissal of carjacking and unlawful driving charges. (Ramirez, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1503-1504.) The supplemental police report contained witness statements indicating that the defendant was not present during the carjacking, and had been an unwilling passenger during the later police chase. (Id. at pp. 1504-1505.) The prosecution had ample opportunity to produce the supplemental report to the defendant prior to the admission of his plea, but failed to do so. (Id. at p. 1506.) The trial court denied the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea and the court of appeal reversed, stating: "Here, appellant has established by clear and convincing evidence that the prosecution's withholding of favorable evidence affected his judgment in entering his plea, rendering the waiver of rights involuntary. The fact that the new information did not uncontrovertibly exonerate appellant is beside the point. The supplemental report identified new defense witnesses, potentially reduced appellant's custody exposure, and provided possible defenses to several charges, thereby casting the case against him in an entirely different light. Appellant suffered prejudice by his ignorance because earlier discovery of the report would have affected his decision to enter a plea before the preliminary hearing." (Ramirez, supra, 141 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1507-1508.)