Opinion ID: 2607124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State's Failure to Stand Silent at Sentencing

Text: Rule 11(e)(1)(B) of our Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure states: (e) Plea agreement procedure. (1) In General.The attorney for the state and the attorney for the defendant    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:       (B) Make a recommendation, or agree 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[.] The record shows that the State did in fact remain silent as it related to a recommendation for sentence. The State relied upon the undisputed portions of the presentence investigation. It is difficult enough upon the court when the State determines not to participate at sentencing, but the fact that Rule 11 allows the State to bargain away its opportunity to argue for a particular sentence does not include avoiding responsibility to provide complete information about the person to be sentenced. The State did relate to the court an incident in which Jackson was involved just prior to sentencing that was not included in the presentence investigation report. Efforts by the State to provide relevant factual information are not tantamount to taking a position on the sentence and will not violate a plea agreement. United States v. Voccola, 600 F.Supp. 1534, 1538-40 (D.Rhode Island 1985); United States v. Block, 660 F.2d 1086, 1091-92 (5th Cir. 1981); United States v. Garcia, 544 F.2d 681, 685 n. 2 (3rd Cir. 1976); see also United States v. Rivera, 879 F.2d 1247, 1253 (5th Cir. 1989). A prosecutor has a duty to ensure that the sentencing court has complete and accurate information concerning the defendant, thereby enabling the court to impose an appropriate sentence. United States v. Block , at 1091. Thus, if the State is aware that the court lacks certain relevant information, the prosecutor has the duty, as an officer of the court, to bring that information to the attention of the court. Id., at 1091-92. In this case, the State promised to stand silent at the time of sentencing. That promise, however, did not require the prosecutor to withhold from the district court pertinent information on appellant's background and character. United States v. Avery, 621 F.2d 214, 216 (5th Cir. 1980). Additionally, the record indicates Jackson was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's comments. The court acknowledged Jackson's lengthy criminal history as the reason why it could not grant probation and further commented on the lack of violent crimes in that history. Jackson was also given full opportunity to respond to the new information and explain to the court the facts and circumstances surrounding the near altercation. Taken as a whole, the record does not support Jackson's claim that the prosecutor's remarks prejudiced him in any manner that resulted in manifest injustice.