Amin v. Superior Ct.
Annotate this CaseOne day in the summer of 2012, petitioner was at an Albertson's grocery store in Irvine. He snuck up behind a woman in the frozen food isle, reached under her dress with his cell phone and started videotaping. Although petitioner fled the scene, the store manager called the police and provided police with a surveillance DVD of the incident. Petitioner admitted using his cell phone to videotape underneath the victim's dress. He also admitted doing the same thing to various other women at the store about six times in the previous three months. The arresting officer in the supermarket matter, Irvine Police Officer T. Goodbrand, prepared a report detailing his investigation of the supermarket incident. Police Officer S. Crawford prepared a four-page supplemental report that became important in how this case has played out. Three other instances of "inappropriate touching" were referenced in the supplemental report (as pertinent here, the case number of one of the three cases was 11-14086). Based on this information, the District Attorney of Orange County charged petitioner with two misdemeanor offenses stemming from the supermarket incident. Petitioner retained Brian Gurwitz, a former senior deputy district attorney, to represent him on the case. Gurwitz personally requested discovery from deputy district attorney Tina Patel while she was handling misdemeanor arraignments in the superior court. Patel provided Gurwitz with Officer Goodbrand's police report, which actually contained information from several different officers. The sentencing court sentenced petitioner in accordance with the terms of a plea agreement worked out by the parties. After sentencing, Patel received a call from the Irvine police informing her they were now able to "make [a] case" against petitioner in case number 11-14086. The district attorney then filed a two-count felony complaint against petitioner alleging petitioner committed a forcible lewd act against two girls under the age of 14. A week later, Gurwitz filed a nonstatutory motion to dismiss the complaint. Because case 11-14086 was referenced in the police report in petitioner's misdemeanor case, Gurwitz argued it was resolved by virtue of petitioner's plea in that case. The prosecution argued the plea was unenforceable and subject to rescission because it was based on fraud and mistake of fact. The prosecution also claimed it would violate public policy to read the plea agreement so as to preclude prosecution of the felony child molestation charges. In this writ proceeding, the issue this case presented for the Court of Appeals' review centered on whether the State could rescind the misdemeanor plea agreement under which they agreed not to pursue certain felony charges against petitioner. The Court disagreed with the State's argument, and granted petitioner's request to enforce the deal.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.