is entitled to assert his or her right to have the same judge who presided over the plea hearing also preside over the sentencing hearing.” People v. Hsu, 85 Cal. Rptr. 3d 566, 574 (Ct. App. 2008). “ ‘It is not always an implied term of a plea bargain that the judge who accepts the plea will impose the sentence; rather, the record must affirmatively demonstrate some basis upon which a defendant may reasonably expect that the judge who accepts the plea will, retain sentencing discretion.’” People v. Serrato, 247 Cal. Rptr. 322, 323-24 (Ct. App. 1988) (quoting People v. Ruhl, 214 Cal. Rptr. 93, 96 (Ct. App. 1985)); see also People v. McIntosh, 98 Cal. Rptr. 3d 901, 902 (Ct. App. 2009) (concluding that when, for reasons beyond the court’s or the prosecutor’s control, the j Cir. 1972) (<HOLDING>); State v. Carson, 597 P.2d 862, 865 (Utah
holding that when the defendant admitted that he pleaded guilty for reasons other than to have the judge who took his plea sentence him the defendant could properly be sentenced by a different judge holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced holding that party who had sought disqualification of the judge who heard his cause only from the assignment judge and not the judge himself could not appropriately raise recusal issue on appeal holding that a defendant was not entitled to a relief under section 2255 when he asserted that the sentencing judge who was not the trial judge was influenced by the sentence imposed by the trial judge on a codefendant