Supreme Judicial Court -- January 12, 2012
Procedural History:
Commonwealth appealed the denial of their petition
Issues:
Does the Commonwealth have the authority to require a judge to vacate a defendant's guilty plea when the Commonwealth makes a charge concession as part of the plea agreement and the judge imposes a less severe sentence than was agreed to in the sentence recommendation?
Does a judge exercise executive powers in violation of art. 30 by imposing a lighter sentence than an agreed recommendation in a plea agreement?
Holdings:
The Commonwealth does not have the authority to require a judge to vacate a defendant's guilty plea even when the Commonwealth makes a charge concession and the judge imposes a less severe sentence than the one the Defendant agreed to.
A judge does not exercise executive powers in violation of article 30 by imposing a lighter sentence than an agreed recommendation in a plea agreement.
Facts:
The Defendant and two other men picked up the victim, an acquaintance, and drove him to an empty parking lot. There, they attempted to rob him at knife point and the Defendant threatened to stab him if he did not give them any money. The Defendant then beat the victim until he surrendered $220, after which the victim escaped by fleeing into the nearby woods.
The Defendant was charged by way of complaint with one count of armed robbery. The prosecution agreed to reduce the charge from armed robbery to larceny from a person if the Defendant pleaded guilty and accepted the recommended sentence of the Commonwealth, which was 2 years in the House of Corrections, with six months served and the remainder suspended for two years. The judge accepted the plea and during the plea colloquy learned that the Defendant was a nineteen year old high school student with bipolar disorder, Asperger's syndrome, and attention deficit disorder. At the sentencing hearing it was made known to the judge that the Defendant had a substance abuse problem but no prior criminal record. The prosecutor asked the judge to either impose the sentence recommendation made by the Commonwealth or reject the plea. The judge proceeded to sentence the Defendant to a two sentence in the House of Corrections, the entire term of which was suspended for two years. The prosecution filed a motion for the judge to vacate the guilty plea, and the judge denied the motion.
Reasoning:
12 (c) (5) of the Massachusetts rules, the judge must only accept or reject the plea or admission itself, and not the plea agreement unlike Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 (c) (3) which requires a judge to accept or reject a plea agreement.
Judgment:
Case remanded for the entry of a judgment denying the Commonwealth's petition.
Dissent:
The judge violated Article 30 by modifying the plea agreement after the judge accepted the plea. The Court should also have looked to the historical practice of attorneys expecting that their plea agreements are binding on the judge. The majority's interpretation of Mass. R. Crim. Pro. 12 (c) (a) inappropriately interjects the judge in the plea bargaining process by recommending to prosecutors that they ask the judge whether or not he is likely to accept the plea bargain before allowing the defendant to plead guilty (HT)
