Opinion ID: 3177143
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pre-trial Offer

Text: On May 4, 2009, the day before trial, the State extended the Petitioner a plea offer. The next day, at a pre-trial hearing, the Petitioner’s trial counsel brought to the circuit court’s attention the Pre-trial Offer. The prosecutor informed the circuit court that the Pre- 2 (...continued) to the Respondent simply as “the State.” 2 trial Offer was to “reduce the charge of burglary to breaking and entering which would carry a one- to ten-year sentence, and then he [referring to the Petitioner] would plead guilty to the conspiracy which carries a possible sentence of one to five years.” The prosecutor told the circuit court that the decision regarding whether the sentence would be concurrent or consecutive would be left to the court’s discretion. Further, the prosecutor informed the circuit court that under the terms of this offer, the State would not pursue any recidivist charge against the Petitioner. Thus, the maximum time in prison faced by the Petitioner under the offered plea was not less than two nor more than fifteen years. Also at the pre-trial hearing, the Petitioner’s trial counsel informed the circuit court that the State had made the Pre-trial Offer to his client, that he had informed his client about the offer, that he recommended that his client accept the offer and that his client rejected the offer. Additionally, the Petitioner’s trial counsel placed on the record before the court that he had discussed the recidivist issue with his client as follows: I’ll be the first to tell you, Judge, I discussed the possibility of recidivist with my client, but either I overlooked or didn’t listen, but I was thinking all his felonies were non-violent, and I know burglary at least for purposes of parole is characterized as a violent crime. So I know that if there is a second violent crime conviction, that would present a possible factual basis for the recidivist to the life sentence rather than doubling the minimum. The Petitioner was asked directly by the circuit court: 1) if he was aware of the Pre-trial Offer; 2) if he understood that the State would forgo filing any recidivist action if he took the 3 offer; and 3) if he had informed his attorney to reject the offer. The Petitioner answered affirmatively to each of the three areas of inquiry by the court. Additionally, the State clearly expressed its intention to pursue a recidivist charge against the Petitioner and that it was the State’s position that the Petitioner could be sentenced up to life in the penitentiary if convicted as a result of the recidivist charge.