Opinion ID: 884724
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Existence of a plea bargain

Text: ¶ 28 The third factor we must consider is the fact that Appellant's guilty plea was the result of a plea bargain. Consideration of this factor is intended to prevent the parties to a plea agreement, either a defendant or the State, from escaping the obligations of the plea agreement after accepting its benefits. State v. Milinovich (1994), 269 Mont. 68, 74, 887 P.2d 214, 217; Bowley, 282 Mont. at 309-11, 938 P.2d at 599 ( citing State v. Allen (1981), 197 Mont. 64, 68-69, 645 P.2d 380, 382). ¶ 29 Appellant's plea agreement provided that in exchange for Appellant's pleas of guilty to attempted deliberate homicide and witness tampering, the State would dismiss with prejudice the remaining four charges at Appellant's sentencing and would bring no further charges against Appellant for any actions concerning V.F. or her family for any of the transactions then known to the State. Appellant pled guilty to the two charges. However, at the time Appellant made his motion, the remaining four charges had not been dismissed because Appellant had not yet been sentenced. Appellant argues that because dismissal had not yet occurred, he had not received the benefits of his plea agreement. Thus, Appellant reasons, having fulfilled his part of the bargain, and having not realized the benefit of the bargain, he would not have escaped his obligations of the plea agreement after accepting its benefits, and no prejudice would have resulted to the State had he been allowed to withdraw his guilty pleas. ¶ 30 The State contends that Appellant received the benefit of the bargain when he pled guilty and insulated himself from further state action on the remaining and future related charges. The State further contends that just because the dismissal of the remaining charges had not yet occurred does not mean that Appellant had not received the benefit of his bargain. Finally, the State argues that absent some legitimate infirmity in the plea process itself, a criminal defendant cannot simply change his mind and back out of an otherwise voluntary plea agreement. We agree with the State. ¶ 31 The plea agreement here certainly conferred some benefits upon Appellant: Appellant avoided the consequences of six felony convictions, and the State refrained from bringing further charges against Appellant. We note that the third factor is resolved in the defendant's favor when the State has in fact breached the plea agreement. See Bowley, 282 Mont. at 309-11, 938 P.2d at 599. In this case, the State never breached the plea agreement. Nothing in the record suggests that at the time Appellant made his motion, the State would renege on the remainder of its obligation and refuse to dismiss the remaining four charges at sentencing. We note that after denial of Appellant's motion, the State in fact fulfilled its obligations and Appellant was sentenced according to the plea agreement. Upon these facts, we resolve the third factor in favor of the court's denial of Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea. ¶ 32 In sum, the three factors discussed above illustrate that no good cause existed for the court to allow Appellant to withdraw his guilty pleas. Although the promptness factor weighs in Appellant's favor, the other two factors do not. The District Court's interrogation was adequate in establishing a factual basis for the guilty plea, and the Appellant's guilty plea was the result of a valid and enforceable plea agreement with the State. The fact that the State had not yet dismissed the four remaining charges when Appellant made his motion to withdraw guilty pleas did not constitute a breach of the plea agreement on the part of the State. Nothing in the record suggests Appellant would not have received the full benefit of the plea bargain at sentencing. ¶ 33 Similarly, nothing in the record establishes that Appellant's plea was based on a fundamental mistake, misapprehension, or misunderstanding to its consequences. Indeed, the record shows that Appellant weighed the evidence for and against him, considered the likelihood of convictions on all counts, and made a voluntary and intelligent decision to enter a plea agreement in order to avoid a lengthy sentence. [A] plea agreement presupposes fundamental fairness in the process of securing such an agreement between the defendant and the prosecutor.... Bowley, 282 Mont. at 310, 938 P.2d at 599. Fundamental fairness requires that Appellant not be allowed to withdraw his guilty plea. ¶ 34 We hold that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying Appellant's motion to withdraw his guilty pleas. ¶ 35 Affirmed. TURNAGE, C.J., and LEAPHART, NELSON and REGNIER, JJ., concur.