Opinion ID: 1191894
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Plea Agreement & Sentencing

Text: In its memorandum opinion, the ICA agreed with Barnett's contention that the circuit court erred in determining that the sentence of concurrent multiple extended terms did not violate the plea agreement. As a result, Barnett maintains that he did not have notice and was not aware that he would be sentenced to multiple life terms. We disagree. In the instant case, the circuit court's sentence gave Barnett the benefit of the bargain of the plea agreement. In effect, the circuit court fashioned a sentence that gave Barnett what amounted to a single life sentence. In other words, Barnett effectively received the sentence that he bargained fora single life term. Although the circuit court sentenced Barnett to multiple life sentences, the court ran the sentences concurrently. When run concurrently, the multiple life terms amounted to exactly one life term. Because the circuit court bound itself to the agreement under HRPP Rule 11 (1993), [8] the circuit court had no other alternative but to sentence Defendant to multiple life terms running concurrently. Although Barnett argues that the circuit court erred by not imposing one life term for all of his class A sexual assault offenses, such a sentence would have been illegal. HRS § 706-600 (1993) provides, in relevant part, that [n]o sentence shall be imposed otherwise than in accordance with this chapter. Moreover, HRS § 706-661 (1993) provides, in relevant part, that a person who has been convicted of a felony may be sentenced to an extended indeterminate term of imprisonment. (Emphasis added.) In other words, the circuit court must sentence a person for each charge of which the person is convicted. As the ICA correctly observed: HRS § 706-661(1) authorizes life imprisonment [f]or a class A felony[.] It does not authorize a single life term of imprisonment for multiple felonies. In other words, the sentence to a single life term of imprisonment for the aggregate of the ten class A felonies is illegal. Barnett, slip op. at 17 (footnote added) (some emphases in original and some added) (brackets in original). Given that HRS § 706-600 does not authorize a court to impose a single sentence on a defendant who has been convicted of multiple charges, the circuit court in this case could not legally have sentenced Barnett to only one term of life imprisonment for the aggregate of the ten class A felonies. Because a sentence of one life term for multiple offenses would have been illegal, the only way the circuit court could have given Barnett what he bargained for was to impose a life term for each class A offense he was convicted of and then run each life term concurrently. Therefore, we disagree with Barnett's contention that the circuit court's sentence violated the plea agreement.