People v. WeathertonAnnotate this Case
The California Supreme Court in People v. Harvey held that facts underlying charges dismissed as part of a negotiated plea may not, absent contrary agreement by the defendant (now called a “Harvey waiver”), be used to impose adverse sentencing consequences. The principle expanded to cover victim restitution. The court concluded that, notwithstanding a Harvey waiver, a defendant is not entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the hope of establishing that no restitution is owing to the victim of a dismissed charge because the defendant did not commit the offense. The court stated that the obvious point of the concept was to regularize and streamline the circumstances in which dismissed charges could be considered at the time of sentencing on charges to which the defendant had pled guilty. In this case, even if defendant were allowed to present his version of events, and even if that version were disbelieved, valuable court time would have been consumed. Thus, if defendant’s connection is accepted, a Harvey waiver’s utility would be undermined, if not severely curtailed. Accordingly, the court affirmed the order of restitution.