Gipperich submits that a court may not alter the terms of a plea agreement once accepted. Further, the court ordered Gipperich to be imprisoned until the fines were paid. It is true that a court is bound by the terms of a plea agreement which it accepts. When the agreement contains a sentencing recommendation, the court is obliged to impose the sentence in accordance with that recommendation and cannot increase or decrease the sentence. Here, the court accepted the plea agreement which provided for payment of counseling fees for the victims and the payment of costs.
Costs are separate from fines.
Thus, the court improperly wavered from the terms of the accepted plea agreement by imposing fines for which no provision existed in the agreement. Accordingly, the portion of the sentencing order requiring the payment of fines and providing for imprisonment for their payment is reversed. Finally, Gipperich complains that the trial court erred in determining that funds in his attorneys' trust accounts paid prospectively by Gipperich could be attached for use as restitution. Upon motion of the State, a hearing was held requesting a determination regarding Gipperich's assets and his ability to pay restitution. Evidence revealed that Gipperich gave money to counsel for his representation in pending civil and criminal matters arising from the molestations.