Opinion ID: 900066
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Did the State violate the terms of the plea agreement?

Text: [¶ 24] Ramos claims he was the victim of prosecutorial misconduct because the State violated its plea agreement at the sentencing hearing when it did not identify the death of Debbie Martines as accidental. The State indicated Martines' death was not premeditated, but argued Ramos made decisions which led to her death. Ramos claims this violated the plea agreement, either directly or by failing to abide by the spirit of the agreement. [¶ 25] A portion of the plea agreement was read at Ramos' plea. It stated: If Mr. Ramos will enter a plea of guilty to the offense of First Degree Manslaughter... the State would agree to dismiss [the alternative counts of second degree murder]. I believe this would accurately reflect the fact that the killing of Debbie Martine[s] was involuntary while it would also acknowledge that the killing was neither excusable nor justified and was accomplished by means of a deadly weapon. The State reserved the right to present aggravating facts to the trial court, and later stated by letter: [I]t is my belief and in fact was the reason for both the charge and the plea offer that has been made that the death of Debbie Martine[s] was accidental in that I do not have any reason to believe that Jack Ramos intended or contemplated her death as a result of the actions which he took. I also believe, obviously, that certain deliberate choices by Mr. Ramos led to her death in that he chose to retrieve the firearm, knew or should have known that it was loaded, contemplated either scaring or even shooting at John Jibben and struck Ms. Martine[s] with the hand in which he held the firearm. (Emphasis added). [¶ 26] State's comments at sentencing included: I do obviously agree with certain things with the defense in this case. We agreed, both by the charge and obviously by the plea agreement, this is not a premeditated act. Jack Ramos did not go to get the gun having decided to kill Debbie Jo Martines... [W]hat I ask you to consider finally,... is that, while this was not a decision made to kill Debbie Jo Martines, that it was the act and the decision perhaps more importantly of Jack Ramos that led us down this path, that created in Jack a homicide waiting to happen. The defendant decided to get drunk knowing from his own experience with himself,... that, when he was drunk, he became violent. He decided to become rowdy at the bar and to challenge people to take him. He decided when he got home to become verbally abusive in front of the children ... He decided that he had to scare either John Jibben or [the cab driver who drove Debbie home] ... He decided that he was going to get a gun that he knew was loaded. He decided that he was going to ... physically abuse Debbie Jo Martines ... first by grabbing her by the head, ... and then ultimately taking a loaded pistol and pistol whipping her with the butt of it. He made those decisions. A very difference in one sense from deciding to kill someone. In another sense there is no difference at all. [¶ 27] The State's argument to the trial court basically reflected the agreement and the letter to Ramos' counsel. Ramos did not establish a violation of the plea agreement or prosecutorial misconduct. [¶ 28] MILLER, C.J., and AMUNDSON, KONENKAMP and GILBERTSON, JJ., concur.