Global Settlements for Multiple Charges

You may have a DUI with companion counts from the same night, two open cases in two counties, or a new arrest while you are already on probation somewhere else. Here is what this article covers: what a California "global settlement" can actually do, what law makes it work, and what it does not touch.

What is a global settlement in a California DUI case?

"Global settlement" and "global resolution" are lawyer phrases. They are not statutory terms. No California statute defines either phrase, and no statute creates a special global settlement procedure.

In plain English, a global settlement is a negotiated package. The prosecution and the defense agree on a disposition that covers several counts, or several separate cases, at once. The package may include pleas, dismissals, sentencing terms, custody credits, probation terms, and an agreement about whether terms run at the same time or one after the other.

The machinery is ordinary joinder, consolidation, plea, and sentencing law. That matters because the phrase "global" can make the deal sound bigger than the court's actual power. A judge still needs authority to accept pleas, impose sentence, dismiss counts, or decide how terms run. A prosecutor still has to agree to the parts that belong to that office. A case in another county does not magically move because everyone likes the word "global."

Counts from one night are different from separate cases

If all the charges are in one complaint from one night, the discussion is usually about counts, not separate cases. A DUI count, a refusal allegation, a suspended license count, and an accident related count may be in the same file. A plea bargain can resolve the file as a whole, subject to the court's approval.

Penal Code 954 is the starting point for charging and combining counts in one court. It allows an accusatory pleading to charge "two or more different offenses connected together in their commission," or "two or more different offenses of the same class of crimes," under separate counts. It also says, "If two or more accusatory pleadings are filed in such cases in the same court, the court may order them to be consolidated."

Two limits follow. First, consolidation is discretionary. You do not have an automatic right to force it. Second, Penal Code 954 speaks to pleadings filed in the same court. The court can also separate counts, or divide them into groups, where the interests of justice and good cause require it. A same courthouse package may be possible, but the statute still gives the judge work to do.

Can my DUI cases in two counties be combined?

This is where people get bad information. California has no general procedure for moving a criminal case from one county to another so you can resolve everything in one courtroom. If you have a DUI in Orange County and another DUI in Los Angeles County, one judge does not get to order the other county's district attorney to fold that case into a single file.

Penal Code 784.7 is the narrow exception, and it does not help a DUI case. That statute lets one jurisdiction assume jurisdiction over offenses committed in other jurisdictions only for a listed set of offenses, including sexual battery, statutory rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, and crimes of domestic violence. It also requires the same defendant and the same victim for all of the offenses, a hearing under Section 954 in the proposed county, and written evidence that all district attorneys in counties with jurisdiction agree to the venue. Charged offenses from a county that has not agreed in writing go back to that county.

Driving under the influence is not on the Penal Code 784.7 list. A multi county DUI resolution is therefore coordination, not consolidation. Each case stays in its own superior court. Each plea is taken in its own courthouse. The dates may be coordinated so one case is not left hanging while another case is resolved, but any one district attorney office can decline the package.

Kellett is a right against repeated prosecution from one course of conduct

Kellett v. Superior Court is different from a voluntary bundle. In Kellett, the California Supreme Court read Penal Code 654 and held that when the prosecution is or should be aware of more than one offense in which the same act or course of conduct plays a significant part, all such offenses must be prosecuted in a single proceeding, unless joinder is prohibited or severance is permitted for good cause.

The remedy is strong. If the first proceeding ends in conviction and sentence, or in an acquittal, failure to unite the known offenses can bar a later prosecution for an omitted offense. That is a right against a second filing from the same act or course of conduct. It is not a convenience tool for unrelated cases.

The hard part is deciding whether the conduct is one course or divisible. Under the Penal Code 654 analysis described in Kellett, that depends on the intent and objective of the actor. Two arrests on two different nights usually raise a different problem from several charges arising out of the same event.

Penal Code 654 limits punishment for the same act or omission

Penal Code 654 says, "An act or omission that is punishable in different ways by different provisions of law may be punished under either of such provisions, but in no case shall the act or omission be punished under more than one provision." It also says that an acquittal or conviction and sentence under any one bars a prosecution for the same act or omission under any other.

That rule can matter inside a package. If several counts are based on the same act or omission, the sentencing court has to address whether multiple punishment is barred. The plea terms should not leave that question loose.

AB 518, Stats. 2021, Chapter 441, changed Penal Code 654 effective January 1, 2022. Before that change, the court had to impose sentence under the provision carrying the longest potential term. After the amendment, the sentencing court may select among the applicable provisions. That change can affect how a plea is structured when more than one statute applies to the same act or omission.

Penal Code 669 is where concurrent and consecutive terms get decided

A lot of people use "global" to mean "run everything together." The statute that does that work is Penal Code 669.

When a defendant is convicted of two or more crimes, Penal Code 669 says "the second or other subsequent judgment upon which sentence is ordered to be executed shall direct whether the terms of imprisonment shall run concurrently or consecutively." It also says, "Upon the failure of the court to determine how the terms of imprisonment on the second or subsequent judgment shall run, the term shall run concurrently."

Do not rely on silence as a plan. Because the statute creates a default, the concurrent or consecutive question should be raised and put on the record at sentencing. If a prior judgment was not before the court, Penal Code 669 gives the court 60 days from notice to make that determination. That is a mechanical rule, and it is easy to miss if the cases are moving in different courtrooms.

Can pleading first keep another DUI from counting as a prior?

DUI sentencing changes when prior DUI convictions fall within the statutory lookback period. I explain the general effect of prior convictions in how priors change a case, and the details matter before anyone tries to sequence pleas.

Vehicle Code 23217 was written for the timing problem. The Legislature found that some repeat DUI offenders may avoid progressively greater mandatory minimum penalties if "a conviction for a subsequent offense occurs before a conviction is obtained on an earlier offense." The statute then says, "The Legislature further finds and declares that the timing of court proceedings should not permit a person to avoid aggravated mandatory minimum penalties for multiple separate offenses occurring within a 10-year period."

That sentence means you should not assume that racing one plea ahead of another defeats the priors ladder. Sections 23540, 23546, 23550, and related DUI statutes remain part of the analysis, including the second offense penalty statute when it applies.

The limit is just as important. Vehicle Code 23217 also says, "Nothing in this section requires consideration of judgment of conviction in a separate proceeding that is entered after the judgment in the present proceeding, except as it relates to violation of probation." So the order of resolution can still change what each case is sentenced as, while plea timing cannot simply erase the ladder. If a prior is alleged and there is a legal basis to attack it, that is a separate issue from global settlement, and I discuss that in challenging a prior conviction.

What is a Harvey waiver in a DUI plea deal?

People v. Harvey is a California Supreme Court case about dismissed charges in a plea bargain. The rule is that a sentencing court may not consider the facts underlying a dismissed count to aggravate or enhance the sentence on the counts of conviction, because the plea bargain carries an implicit understanding that the defendant will not suffer adverse sentencing consequences from a dismissed charge.

A Harvey waiver changes that. It is an express agreement that lets the sentencing judge consider facts from dismissed or uncharged counts, commonly for restitution and for aggravation.

This comes up often in package deals because a global resolution may dismiss counts in several files. A dismissal may look clean on the minute order, but a Harvey waiver may still let the facts from that dismissed count affect sentencing. Ask whether the proposed deal includes one. Ask what facts it covers. Ask whether it reaches dismissed counts in another case. This also comes up in negotiations involving a wet reckless plea, where the wording of the agreement matters.

Does a plea deal fix my DMV suspension deadlines?

The DMV track is separate from the criminal case. A negotiated criminal package does not erase an administrative deadline that already ran, and it does not create DMV concurrency that the Vehicle Code does not provide.

Vehicle Code 13558(b) says a person who has received notice of an order of suspension or revocation may request a hearing. If the person wants that hearing before the effective date of the order, "the request for a hearing shall be made within 10 days of the receipt of the notice of the order of suspension or revocation." Vehicle Code 13558(e) adds that a request for an administrative hearing does not stay the suspension or revocation of the person's privilege to operate a motor vehicle.

Each arrest has its own notice and its own 10 day request deadline. A plea entered months later does nothing about a deadline from the first two weeks. If you are looking for the DMV basics, start with the DMV hearing and the administrative per se suspension.

Vehicle Code 13353.3 does create concurrency in one setting. If a person is suspended under Section 13353.2 and is later convicted of Vehicle Code 23152 or 23153 arising out of the same occurrence, both the administrative suspension and the criminal court suspension or revocation are imposed, except the periods run concurrently and the total period cannot exceed the longer of the two. That rule is tied to the same occurrence. It says nothing about two different arrests on two different nights.

Can a new DUI violate probation in an old case?

If you are on probation in another case, a new DUI can create a second problem. The new case moves forward on its own, and the older court may treat the new arrest or conviction as a probation issue. The exact probation terms matter. Read them. Bring them. If you do not have them, get the minute order and the probation order from the old case.

The probation carve out in Vehicle Code 23217 matters here. The statute says nothing requires consideration of a judgment entered later in a separate proceeding, "except as it relates to violation of probation." That means timing may look one way for sentencing the new case, and another way when the old court decides whether probation has been violated.

A global discussion should identify every probation grant before pleas are taken. If you are trying to understand the usual probation framework, my page on DUI probation terms is a useful place to start.

Warrants and custody elsewhere have to be handled before a package works

A bench warrant can block practical movement on a package. If you missed a court date, the court may want the warrant addressed before it will take a plea, recall the warrant, or set sentencing. I cover the basics of a bench warrant and missing a court date separately, but the short version is simple: an unresolved warrant is not background noise.

Custody somewhere else creates a different set of tools. Penal Code 1381 applies to a defendant who has been convicted and is imprisoned in state prison, committed to county jail for a term of 90 days or more, or committed to youth custody, and who has other charges pending or is awaiting sentencing. On written notice delivered to the district attorney demanding trial or sentencing, the court must bring the defendant to trial or for sentencing within 90 days. If the district attorney fails to proceed within that window, the court shall dismiss the action, unless a continuance was granted and consented to by the defendant in open court.

Penal Code 1203.2a applies where a person released on probation is committed to prison for another offense. The court that granted probation has jurisdiction to impose sentence in the probationer's absence on the written request the statute prescribes, and the court loses jurisdiction if it does not act within the periods the statute sets.

Diversion and dismissal are two different questions

Vehicle Code 23640 closes the door on program based pretrial diversion for a DUI count. For a person charged with Vehicle Code 23152 or 23153, the court "shall neither suspend nor stay the proceedings for the purpose of allowing the accused person to attend or participate" in an education or treatment program. The court also may not consider dismissal of the proceedings, or entertain a motion to dismiss, because the accused person attends or participates during that suspension.

So diversion is not the missing piece in a DUI global settlement. If the count is a DUI, why DUI diversion is barred starts with Vehicle Code 23640.

Dismissal is a separate issue. Penal Code 1385(a) says, "The judge or magistrate may, either on motion of the court or upon the application of the prosecuting attorney, and in furtherance of justice, order an action to be dismissed. The reasons for the dismissal shall be stated orally on the record."

Notice who is named. The defendant may invite the court to act, but the statutory power belongs to the court on its own motion or on the prosecutor's application. If the district attorney agrees to drop a count as part of a package, the judge still has to make the dismissal order, and the reasons go on the record.

Can a package deal be a bad idea for my DUI cases?

A package can solve a calendar problem and still be a bad trade. If one file has a serious legal issue, that file should be evaluated on its own before it is folded into a larger agreement. Do not give up a real challenge just because the global offer is tidy.

The point is not to predict what a judge or jury would do. The point is to know what you are trading. A package may ask you to plead to a count you would otherwise contest. It may require a Harvey waiver. It may create probation terms that affect another case. It may leave the DMV track untouched. It may also create a clean sentencing record across several files. You need to see both sides before you say yes.

If you are early in the process, the court process step by step can help you place the global discussion in time. A plea offer means something different before motions are heard than it does after the court has ruled on the main legal issues.

Bring the file facts before anyone tries to sequence the cases

Sequencing matters, but it should not be guessed at. Before I can tell you what can be bundled, what must stay separate, and what order may matter, I need the basic file facts.

• Every case number.
• Every county and courthouse.
• Every next court date.
• The date of each arrest.
• Any probation grant, probation order, or minute order from an older case.
• Any warrant information.
• Any DMV hearing request information you have.
• Any notice that your license is suspended or revoked, especially if there is a risk of driving on a suspended license.

The arrest dates matter because administrative deadlines move on their own track. The probation papers matter because an older court may be able to act even while the new case is still pending. The case numbers matter because a same court consolidation question is different from a cross county coordination question.

Use the case analysis on this page, or call me directly at (888) 271-6644. I answer my own phone, 24/7.