State v. Hannibal, Minn.Ct.App., 7/27/10. This is a sentencing appeal following protracted plea negotiations in which the state complained that the judge had his thumb on the scales. Mr. Hannibal twice rejected the state’s offer of a presumptive executed sentence, instead holding out for a stayed sentence. Eventually, Mr. Hannibal plead guilty straight up; the state asked for an upward departure and Mr. Hannibal asked for a downward dispositional departure. The trial court granted Mr. Hannibal’s wish for a stayed sentence.
Rule 28.04 authorizes a prosecutor to appeal as of right in felony cases from any sentence imposed or stayed by the district court. The rules go on to say that the appellate court may review “whether the sentence is inconsistent with statutory requirements, unreasonable, inappropriate, excessive, unjustifiably disparate, or not warranted by the findings of fact issued by the sentencing court.” Here, the appellate court concludes that the state’s claim that the trial court impermissibly injected itself into the plea negotiations by promising Mr. Hannibal a stayed sentence in exchange for his guilty plea would, if true, constitute an “inappropriate” sentence reviewable under the rules.
The state argued that the trial court had commented in an off the record discussion with counsel that he believed that Mr. Hannibal was amenable to probation. This amounted to a promise of probation, said the state. The appellate court disagrees, looking primarily to the plea petition, which did not indicate any agreement between Mr. Hannibal and the trial court. During the sentencing hearing, neither Mr. Hannibal nor the trial court referred to any promise of a probation sentence; rather, the trial court heard everyone out and then ruled. The record did not establish that the trial court “directly and unequivocally promised [Mr. Hannibal] a particular sentence in advance.” State v. Anyanwu, 681 N.W.2d 411 (Minn. App. 2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment