Opinion ID: 4534679
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: This case gives us the opportunity to reaffirm once more that plea agreements are contracts, and accordingly, they are subject to general principles of contract law. The plea agreement here provided that the defendant would plead guilty to his pending charge of second-degree arson, that he would cooperate in an interview regarding some other suspicious fires that had occurred, and that the State would not bring charges regarding those other fires. After the defendant pled guilty, the State changed its mind and decided it did not need or want the interview. It advised the defendant before sentencing he would be charged with other arsons and gave him an opportunity to withdraw from the plea agreement. The defendant declined to withdraw. Nonetheless, the State brought four additional arson charges. The defendant moved to dismiss them as a breach of the plea agreement. The district court denied the motion, and we granted interlocutory review. Consistent with the law of contracts, we now hold that the State could not unilaterally withdraw from the plea agreement either by declining to conduct the interview or by making an offer of rescission that the defendant did not accept. Because the State remains bound by its plea agreement under these circumstances, we reverse the order denying the defendant’s motion to dismiss and remand with directions to grant that motion.