Opinion ID: 2654645
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: In General. – The attorney for the state and the

Text: attorney for the defendant or the defendant when acting pro se may engage in discussions with a view toward reaching an agreement that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to a charged offense or to a lesser related offense, the attorney for the state will do any of the following: (A) Agree not to prosecute other crimes or move for dismissal of other charges; (B) Make a recommendation, or agreement not to oppose the defendant’s request, for a particular sentence, with the understanding that such recommendation or request shall not be binding upon the court; or 10 (C) Agree that specific sentence is the appropriate disposition of this case. W.R.Cr.P. 11(e)(1) (emphasis added). [¶21] The procedures required of Rule 11 are “well-defined.” Gibbs v. State, 2008 WY 79, ¶ 12, 187 P.3d 862, 866 (Wyo. 2008). Noel would have this Court declare that Rule 11 requires all three of the subparagraphs to apply to any given plea agreement when the plain and unambiguous language of the rule clearly provides for those parameters in the disjunctive, not conjunctive. 3 [¶22] Here, the State agreed with Noel to reduce his charges from attempted seconddegree murder to attempted voluntary manslaughter, which comports with the requirements of Rule 11(e)(1)(A). Nothing more was required. Accordingly, this Court need not further consider Noel’s assertions that the State also was required to enter into a “true” sentencing recommendation. The State was entitled to advocate for the maximum agreed-upon punishment of twenty years per count, while Noel was entitled to advocate for the minimum of five-and-one-half. The plea agreement was valid.