Austin’s Findings Not Required Before Imposing Agreed Upon Sentence, Triggered By Defendant’s Failure to Appear at Sentencing Hearing.

State v. Batchelor, Minn.Ct.App., 8/10/10.  Police found Mr. Batchelor in possession of a handgun which he was prohibited from possessing.  While in jail waiting around to go to court on that charge he assaulted an inmate, which lead to an assault charge getting tacked on.  He pled guilty to one count of felony firearm possession by an ineligible person, and to one count of first degree assault.  As part of the plea, the state agreed that Mr. Batchelor would be released from jail, and Mr. Batchelor agreed that if he returned for sentencing he would get the standard sixty month sentence on the gun possession, concurrent with an identical sentence on a to be amended count of attempted assault.

On the other hand, if he didn’t appear, then the sentence would be 161 months.  Needless to say, Mr. Batchelor did a runner.  Sort of; police found him two days later.  Mr. Batchelor said he got the dates mixed up.

Here’s how the appellate court framed the issue on appeal:

Appellant asks this court to articulate a new rule that procedural due process requires the district court to specifically find that a defendant’s failure to appear at a scheduled sentencing hearing was intentional or inexcusable before imposing an agreed-on sentence instead of a reduced sentence that was expressly conditioned upon appearance at the scheduled sentencing hearing. Appellant suggests that the findings required by State v. Austin, 295 N.W.2d 246 (Minn. 1980), would be appropriate…

The appellate court is unwilling to overlay Austin’s probation revocation requirements to these facts.  Mr. Batchelor made a risky conditional guilty plea and then screwed up without any apparent justification.  The court does note that an incapacitated defendant who misses a sentencing hearing may be entitled to enforcement of the original agreement.  “I forgot,” however, doesn’t cut it, especially when there was only a week between the plea/release and the sentencing hearing.

The appellate court also rejected Mr. Batchelor’s argument that he should have been allowed to withdraw his guilty plea.