Opinion ID: 1918267
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: whether the state violated the terms of the plea bargain agreement.

Text: ¶ 4. Goss argues that a plea bargain agreement was reached between court-appointed defense counsel, Honorable Robert M. Logan, and District Attorney Ken Turner, whereby Goss would plead guilty to burglary. It was Goss's understanding that in exchange for his guilty plea, the habitual offender portion of the indictment would be dismissed. Accordingly, Goss believed that he would receive a ten (10) year sentence with parole eligibility and which would run concurrent with any other sentence(s) he may incur. ¶ 5. Goss alleges that this agreement was rescinded by the District Attorney's office, since neither Judge Gordon nor the victims of the burglary were willing to accept or consent to the terms of the agreement. Goss maintains that a new agreement was proposed whereby Goss would plead guilty to burglary and the State would pursue habitual offender status under Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-81 (habitual offender without prior violent crime conviction), as opposed to Miss.Code Ann. § 99-19-83 (habitual offender with violent crime conviction) under which he was originally indicted. Pursuant to this agreement, it was Goss's understanding that the State would recommend a ten (10) year sentence without the possibility of parole, which is the mandatory sentence under § 99-19-81. ¶ 6. Goss pled guilty to the charge of burglary and the State recommended that the indictment be amended to reflect § 99-19-81 instead of § 99-19-83 and Circuit Court Judge Marcus D. Gordon sentenced Goss to the mandatory ten (10) year sentence without possibility of parole. Had Goss rejected the terms of the second agreement, his only other possible courses of action would have been to either (1) plead guilty to the original charges as alleged in the indictment, or (2) plead not guilty to the original charges as alleged in the indictment. Under either of these courses of action, Goss would have been subject to a mandatory life sentence without the possibility of parole. ¶ 7. Goss relies upon the United States Supreme Court's decision in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971) as authority for the proposition that the prosecutor breached his agreement by proposing the second agreement which included different terms than that originally agreed to by Goss. However, this Court should find that Goss's reliance on Santobello is unfounded. There is a major distinction between the facts of the case at bar and those in Santobello. The defendant in Santobello had already pled guilty when the prosecution changed its recommendation for sentencing, whereas in the case at bar, Goss was advised of the second agreement and agreed to the second agreement before he pled guilty. Had Goss not been advised of the recission of the State's original agreement when he pled guilty, his reliance on Santobello would be understandable. However, Goss admits that he was aware of the State's recission of the original agreement as well as the offer of a new agreement with different terms before he pled guilty to the charge of burglary. ¶ 8. Simply because the State rescinded its original agreement in what Goss refers to as the twelfth hour, this is not sufficient to show that he was coerced into pleading guilty under the revised agreement. At any time, Goss could have invoked his right to plead not guilty and proceed to trial. While Goss may feel aggrieved by the fact that the second agreement was not as favorable to him as the original agreement, the State is under no obligation to honor the demands of a criminal defendant. Nor is the trial judge required to honor the terms of any recommendation made as a result of a plea agreement. ¶ 9. It should also be noted that the record contains a statement made by Mr. Logan, Goss's court-appointed defense counsel. Mr. Logan's statement does not support Goss's allegations in that there is no mention of an original agreement that was changed at the last hour. This Court will not rely solely on assertions made in the briefs; it is the appellant's duty to establish any facts necessary to establish his claim of error. Ross v. State, 603 So.2d 857, 861 (Miss.1992). Goss has provided no support for his allegation that there was in fact an original agreement, let alone a twelfth hour recission of such agreement. Accordingly, the trial court's decision is affirmed.