State v. Montez, Minn.Ct.App., 6/5/2017. Mr. Montez pled guilty to a fifth degree drugs charge. The written plea agreement contained the usual language about what would happen if he messed up between the plea and sentencing:
I understand that if I do not cooperate with the [presentence investigation (PSI)], fail to return for sentencing w/o lawful excuse, fail to remain law abiding or even being charged with a crime (sic), fail to abstain from non-prescribed drugs and/or alcohol, or fail to follow any other orders of the court, then the above plea agreement is in jeopardy and the court may sentence me without regard to that agreement, as if I entered a “straight plea.”
He messed up, eventually getting charged with another drug offense, before sentencing. The trial court told Mr. Montez that because of his violations of the above plea agreement provision that he could and was going to sentence him "any way I see fit, under the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines." Neither before pronouncing sentence nor thereafter did Mr. Montez move to withdraw his plea.
Instead, he argued on appeal that he should be allowed to do just that. Mr. Montez put forward several reasons for this, none of which did the court of appeals accept:
Because appellant’s plea agreement included conditions and he did not comply with those conditions, the district court had no obligation to impose the sentence in the plea agreement and did not violate the plea agreement by imposing a different sentence, and appellant is not entitled to withdraw his plea.
No comments:
Post a Comment