Opinion ID: 4204950
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sentencing Inclinations

Text: California refers to sentencing inclinations as “indicated sentences.” In People v. Clancey, 56 Cal. 4th 562, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d 485, 299 P.3d 131 (2013), the California Supreme Court 11  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  explained the differences between a plea bargain and a sentencing inclination: The process of plea bargaining which has received statutory and judicial authorization as an appropriate method of disposing of criminal prosecutions contemplates an agreement negotiated by the [State] and the defendant and approved by the court. Pursuant to this procedure the defendant agrees to plead guilty in order to obtain a reciprocal benefit, generally consisting of a less severe punishment than that which could result if he were convicted of all offenses charged. Judicial approval is an essential condition precedent to the effectiveness of the bargain worked out by the defense and the prosecution. Because the charging function is entrusted to the executive, the court has no authority to substitute itself as the representative of the [State] in the negotiation process and under the guise of plea bargaining to agree to a disposition of the case over prosecutorial objection. On the other hand, where the defendant pleads guilty to all charges so all that remains is the pronouncement of judgment and sentencing, there is no requirement that the [State] consent to a guilty plea. In that circumstance, the court may indicate what sentence it will impose if a given set of facts is confirmed, irrespective of whether guilt is adjudicated at trial or admitted by plea. 56 Cal. 4th at 569-70, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 490, 299 P.3d at 135 (internal punctuation and citations removed). Thus, a plea bargain is an agreement between the executive branch5 and the defendant, which can include the reduction or dismissal of charges and/or agreements regarding sentencing. See Hawaii Rules of Penal Procedure (“HRPP”) Rule 11(f)(1) (2014). Pursuant to this rule, a judge is able to participate 5 In Hawai‘i, the executive branch is represented by the Attorney General or county Prosecuting Attorney offices. 12  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  in negotiations leading to a plea agreement, and may agree to be bound.6 Id. In Clancey, the California Supreme Court explained the role of the executive versus the court in sentencing proceedings: The charging function is the sole province of the executive. The executive also decides whether to engage in negotiations with the defense by which a more lenient disposition of the charges can be secured without trial-- a bargain that must ultimately be approved by a court. . . . . The imposition of sentence within the legislatively determined limits, on the other hand, is exclusively a judicial function. The refusal of prosecutors to consider plea bargaining as a viable alternative to a lengthy trial may militate against the efficient administration of justice, impose unnecessary costs upon taxpayers, and subject defendants to the harassment and trauma of avoidable trials. A court may alleviate this burden upon our criminal justice system if this can be accomplished by means of a permissible exercise of judicial sentencing discretion in an appropriate case. Clancey, 56 Cal. 4th at 574, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 493, 299 P.3d at 138 (internal citations and quotation marks removed). The Clancey court also laid out appropriate procedures for trial judges regarding sentencing inclinations or “indicated sentences”: First, in order to preserve the executive’s prerogative to conduct plea negotiations, a trial court 6 HRPP Rule 11(f)(1) provides: IN GENERAL. The prosecutor and counsel for the defendant, or the defendant when acting pro se, may enter into plea agreements that, upon the entering of a plea of guilty or no contest to a charged offense or to an included or related offense, the prosecutor will take certain actions or adopt certain positions, including the dismissal of other charges and the recommending or not opposing of specific sentences or dispositions on the charge to which a plea was entered. The court may participate in discussions leading to such plea agreements and may agree to be bound thereby. 13  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  generally should refrain from announcing an indicated sentence while the parties are still negotiating a potential plea bargain. . . . Second, a trial court should consider whether the existing record concerning the defendant and the defendant’s offense or offenses is adequate to make a reasoned and informed judgment as to the appropriate penalty. The utility of an indicated sentence necessarily depends on the quality of the information available to the court at an early stage concerning the offense and the defendant’s criminal history. Third, a court may not offer any inducement in return for a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. It may not treat a defendant more leniently because he foregoes his right to trial or more harshly because he exercises that right. Because an indicated sentence is merely an instance of sentencing discretion wisely and properly exercised, the indicated sentence must be the same punishment the court would be prepared to impose if the defendant were convicted at trial. An indicated sentence, properly understood, is not an attempt to induce a plea by offering the defendant a more lenient sentence than what could be obtained through plea negotiations with the prosecuting authority. When a trial court properly indicates a sentence, it has made no promise that the sentence will be imposed. Rather, the court has merely disclosed to the parties at an early stage -- and to the extent possible -- what the court views, on the record then available, as the appropriate sentence so that each party may make an informed decision. . . . Fourth, a trial court may not bargain with a defendant over the sentence to be imposed. 56 Cal. 4th at 574-75, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 494, 299 P.3d at 138-39 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted; emphasis in original). We agree with the California Supreme Court’s well-reasoned approach to sentencing inclinations. First, absent unusual circumstances, a trial court should not provide a sentencing inclination unless plea negotiations have concluded or did not occur. Second, before giving a sentencing inclination, a trial court should consider whether the existing record concerning the 14  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  defendant and the defendant’s offense(s) is adequate to make a reasoned and informed judgment as to the appropriate penalty. Third, a trial court must follow the established “principle forbidding a trial court from improperly considering the defendant’s exercise of his constitutional right to a . . . trial as an influential factor in determining the appropriate sentence.” State v. Kamanao, 103 Hawaii 315, 321 n.8, 82 P.3d 401, 407 n.8 (2003) (citations omitted). In other words, the sentencing inclination must be the same punishment the court would be prepared to impose if the defendant were convicted after trial. Finally, a trial court may not bargain with the defendant over the sentence to be imposed, as a trial court’s sentencing inclination must be the same punishment the court would impose if the defendant were convicted following a trial. Bargaining over the sentence would contravene this requirement. B. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanney’s motion to reconsider pursuant to the original sentencing inclination, because a sentencing inclination is not binding, and certain facts became available after the court issued its sentencing inclination. The guidance discussed above was not part of our law at the time of Sanney’s change of plea, sentencing, or reconsideration of sentence, so we analyze this appeal based on governing law at the times of the trial court’s decisions. Sanney argues he should have been resentenced pursuant to the circuit court’s original inclination of probation with eighteen months of 15  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  imprisonment instead of the ten years of imprisonment actually imposed, because the court’s stated sentencing inclination influenced his decision to change his plea to no contest. As noted, this was Sanney’s only request to the circuit court -- he did not request the opportunity to withdraw his plea. Therefore, the only issue before us is whether the circuit court abused its discretion when it denied Sanney’s motion to reconsider sentence and refused to resentence him pursuant to its original sentencing inclination. To constitute an abuse of discretion, “it must appear that the court clearly exceeded the bounds of reason or disregarded rules or principles of law or practice to the substantial detriment of a party litigant.” Hussein, 122 Hawaii at 503, 229 P.3d at 321. A sentencing inclination is not binding; it is merely a trial court’s statement of the sentence it would be inclined to impose for the offense(s) charged, should the defendant be convicted after trial. Sanney argues that the information available at the pre-sentencing hearing and the sentencing hearing was virtually identical. As discussed above, however, the record clearly reflects that the circuit court changed its sentencing inclination based on Sanney’s statements to the probation officer who was preparing the PSI. These statements occurred after the change of plea, and comprise information not available to the circuit court at the time it 16  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  gave its sentencing inclination. The circuit court’s postponement of the sentencing hearing so the probation officer could be present to clarify the PSI evidences the importance of these statements to the circuit court’s sentencing decision. At the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence, the circuit court provided Sanney with the opportunity to explain his statements. Sanney’s responses, however, did not assuage the circuit court’s concerns. The circuit explained how information not available at the time it gave its original inclination caused it to change its sentencing inclination and to deny the motion to reconsider sentence. At the change of plea hearing, Sanney unequivocally stated that he understood the circuit court’s sentencing inclination was not binding. The circuit court conducted a thorough change of plea colloquy before finding that Sanney had voluntarily and knowingly entered into the change of plea. At the hearing on the motion to reconsider sentence, the circuit court explained that it had changed its sentencing inclination based on information in the PSI that was not available at the time of its original sentencing inclination. Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to resentence Sanney pursuant to its original sentencing inclination, and the ICA did not err in affirming the circuit court. 17  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  C. Prospectively, a trial court must advise the defendant of a change in its sentencing inclination before imposing a sentence and provide the defendant with the choice of affirming or withdrawing the guilty or no contest plea. Although we find no error in this case, we take this opportunity to further address the sentencing inclination process to provide a new rule for application to future cases. The American Bar Association’s Criminal Justice Section historically provides guidance in the form of Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty (“ABA Standards”). ABA Standard 14-2.1 relates to “Plea withdrawal and specific performance,” and provides, in relevant part: (a) After entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere and before sentence, the court should allow the defendant to withdraw the plea for any fair and just reason. In determining whether a fair and just reason exists, the court should also weigh any prejudice to the prosecution caused by reliance on the defendant’s plea. (b) After a defendant has been sentenced pursuant to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court should allow the defendant to withdraw the plea whenever the defendant, upon a timely motion for withdrawal, proves that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice. A timely motion for withdrawal is one made with due diligence, considering the nature of the allegations therein. (i) Withdrawal may be necessary to correct a manifest injustice when the defendant proves, for example, that: . . . . (E) the defendant did not receive the charge or sentence concessions contemplated by the plea agreement, which was either tentatively or fully concurred in by the court, and the defendant did not affirm the plea after being advised that the court no longer concurred and after being called upon to either affirm or withdraw the plea[.] (Emphases added.) On its face, ABA Standard 14-2.1(b)(i)(E) applies to plea bargain agreements and not to judge-only sentencing inclinations. The ABA Standard applies, however, 18  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  even when a court has not agreed to be bound, but has merely indicated a tentative inclination to follow a plea agreement, including sentencing recommendations. Stating a tentative inclination to follow the sentencing recommendations of a plea agreement is analogous to giving a sentencing inclination without a plea agreement. Thus, the ABA Standard can be analogized to situations where a court changes its sentencing inclination. Various states, including Hawaii, have adopted procedures identical to, or consistent with, the ABA Standard. Relevant cases involve circumstances where a judge is no longer inclined to follow its original sentencing inclination, a defendant cannot as a matter of law be sentenced pursuant to a trial court’s originally stated sentencing inclination, or the law has changed to allow for a more lenient sentence. In 1967, Wisconsin adopted the ABA Standard while it was still in the tentative draft stage. See State v. Washington, 176 Wis. 2d 205, 214, 500 N.W.2d 331, 335 (Wis. Ct. App. 1993) (noting that the Wisconsin Supreme Court “accepted the 1967 tentative draft of what is now the plea withdrawal standard, sec. 14-2.1 of the American Bar Association’s (ABA) Standards for Criminal Justice (2d Ed. Supp. 1986)”). In 1930, the Supreme Court of Illinois held that where defendants changed their plea based on a judge’s stated inclination offering a more lenient sentence than that 19  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  required by law, they should have been granted leave to withdraw their pleas. People v. Moore, 342 Ill. 316, 320, 174 N.E. 386, 387 (1930). In Ex parte Otinger, 493 So.2d 1362 (Ala. 1986), the Supreme Court of Alabama held that where a trial judge cannot follow its initial indicated sentence, the defendant should be afforded the opportunity to withdraw his pleas. 493 So.2d at 1364. In Cripps v. State, 122 Nev. 764, 137 P.3d 1187 (2006), the Nevada Supreme Court held that “when a judge does express an inclination to follow the parties’ sentencing recommendation, the defendant must be given an opportunity to withdraw the plea if the judge later reconsiders and concludes that a harsher sentence is warranted.” 122 Nev. at 771, 137 P.3d at 1191-92. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department of New York held that “[w]here the court determines that it cannot sentence the defendant as indicated prior to acceptance of the plea, the proper procedure is to allow defendant the choice of either withdrawing his guilty plea or accepting a proper sentence[.]” People v. Grant, 471 N.Y.S. 2d 325, 327 (1984) (internal citation omitted). Finally, where a trial court granted defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to greater charges due to there being an inadequate factual basis for the pleas but denied the motion as to a lesser charge, a New Jersey appellate court held that a plea withdrawal is mandated “whenever the defendant’s exposure to prison time is 20  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  dramatically reduced from what it was when a defendant entered the plea.” State v. Ashley, 443 N.J. Super. 10, 23, 126 A.3d 1234, 1243 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015), certif. denied, 224 N.J. 526 (2016). This court has held that a motion to withdraw plea should be granted where a defendant entered a plea based on a sentencing inclination that is legally impossible. See State v. Fogel, 95 Hawai‘i 398, 405, 23 P.3d 733, 740 (2001). (“[W]e hold that to correct manifest injustice, a defendant must be permitted . . . to withdraw a plea entered in reliance on a court’s representation or promise, which is statutorily incapable of being effectuated.”). States have also applied the concept of plea withdrawal in situations where a court has changed its mind after a defendant enters a plea in reliance on a court’s stated sentencing inclination. For example, in People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276, 505 N.W. 2d 208 (1993), the Supreme Court of Michigan allowed the defendant the right to withdraw his plea after the court determined a harsher sentence was appropriate: The judge’s preliminary evaluation of the case does not bind the judge’s sentencing discretion, since additional facts may emerge during later proceedings, in the presentence report, through the allocution afforded to the prosecutor and the victim, or from other sources. However, a defendant who pleads guilty or nolo contendere in reliance upon a judge’s preliminary evaluation with regard to an appropriate sentence has an absolute right to withdraw the plea if the judge later determines that the sentence must exceed the preliminary evaluation. 443 Mich. at 283, 505 N.W.2d at 212 (emphasis added). 21  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  The District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District, iterated a similar standard: Where[,] as here[,] a nolo contendere or guilty plea is tendered in reliance on the court’s expression of sentencing intentions, and the plea is accepted, the sentencing judge must grant the defendant a clear opportunity to withdraw the plea if the judge cannot in conscience impose the sentence indicated; but that is the limit of the trial court’s obligation. State ex rel. Wilhoit v. Wells, 356 So.2d 817, 824 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1978) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted; brackets added). The court reached this conclusion in part by considering the 1968 version of the ABA Standard, Pleas of Guilty. Id. New Jersey has, by rule, adopted a similar plea withdrawal standard. New Jersey Rules of Court Rule 3:9-3 titled “Plea Discussions; Agreements; Withdrawals” provides in part: The court may then indicate . . . the maximum sentence it would impose in the event the defendant enters a plea of guilty, assuming, however, . . . that the information in the presentence report at the time of sentence is as has been represented to the court at the time of the disclosure and supports its determination that the interests of justice would be served thereby . . . If at the time of sentencing the court determines that the interests of justice would not be served . . . by imposing sentence in accordance with the court’s previous indications of sentence, the court may vacate the plea or the defendant shall be permitted to withdraw the plea. N.J. Ct. R. 3:9-3 (emphasis added). Finally, in Clancey, the Supreme Court of California contemplated defendant’s request to adopt a rule “that when a trial court offers an indicated sentence, it must advise the defendant of the opportunity to withdraw the plea if the court 22  FOR PUBLICATION IN WEST’S HAWAIʻI REPORTS AND PACIFIC REPORTER  later decides not to impose the indicated sentence.” Clancey, 56 Cal. 4th at 583-84, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 501, 299 P.3d at 144-45. The court ultimately declined “to resolve here which standard should govern the withdrawal of a plea after a trial court declines to impose the indicated sentence” because the trial court did not decline to follow its original inclination and the defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea. 56 Cal. 4th at 584, 155 Cal. Rptr. 3d at 501-02, 299 P.3d at 145. The State of California acknowledged, however, the existence of California law permitting a guilty plea to be withdrawn for “good cause shown” would be given “a liberal construction . . . in the interest of promoting justice.” Id. Hawaii law regarding plea withdrawals is governed by HRPP Rule 32(d) (2012) and case law construing the rule. The language in HRPP Rule 32(d) is similar to that in ABA Standard 14-2.1 and provides: (d) Withdrawal of Plea. A motion to withdraw a plea of guilty or of nolo contendere may be made before sentence is imposed or imposition of sentence is suspended; provided that, to correct manifest injustice the court, upon a party’s motion submitted no later than ten (10) days after imposition of sentence, shall set aside the judgment of conviction and permit the defendant to withdraw the plea. At any later time, a defendant seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty or nolo contendere may do so only by petition pursuant to Rule 40 of these rules and the court shall not set aside such a plea unless doing so is necessary to