Opinion ID: 1992461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: rejection of prosecutor's sentencing recommendation

Text: Appellant argues, as part of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive, that the trial court rejected the prosecution's sentencing recommendation, while knowing that the defendant had expected the judge to honor the recommendation since it was part of the plea bargain. (Appellant's Brief at 9). Such a claim is not, strictly speaking, a challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence; rather, it is properly addressed to the validity of the appellant's plea. If, in fact, the plea agreement had been violated, the proper course for appellant to have taken would have been to move to withdraw his no contest plea within ten days of sentencing. See Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 498 Pa. 342, 346 n. 2, 446 A.2d 591, 593 n. 2 (1982); Commonwealth v. Herberg, 306 Pa.Super. 245, 249, 452 A.2d 536, 537 (1982); Commonwealth v. Fazenbacker, 248 Pa.Super. 433, 375 A.2d 175 (1977); Pa.R.Crim.P. 319(b). No such motion was filed. Regardless, no such motion would have been appropriate, as appellant received precisely what he was promised under the plea agreement. The transcript of the December 4, 1987 hearing contains the following exchange: Mr. Osteen is charged with one count of simple assault and one count of harassment as a summary. Mr. Osteen is pleading to simple assault and the harassment would merge. We would further recommend consecutive probation to an outstanding Information at 1085 of 1987.       MR. SCUTELLA: You understand the plea bargain as I have outlined it to the Court? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. MR. SCUTELLA: Have any other promises or threats been made to you to encourage you to plead guilty? THE DEFENDANT: No. MR. SCUTELLA: Have any promises been made as to what the sentence of the Court would be other than the recommendation of a consecutive probationary sentence? THE DEFENDANT: No. MR. SCUTELLA: You understand the Court is not bound by the recommendation. The Court can sentence you up to the maximum recommendation made by law consecutive to the other Information? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. MR. SCUTELLA: The Judge who accepts your plea today may not be the Judge who sentences you, and you will not be allowed to withdraw your plea if another Judge sentences you, do you understand that? THE DEFENDANT: Yes. MR. SCUTELLA: Mr. Osteen, would you sign here indicating I have gone over your rights with you? (Defendant complies.) (N.T. 12/4/87 at 2, 4). (Emphasis added). That oral exchange during the plea colloquy was reinforced by the following written acknowledgment signed by appellant and his counsel: 4. I understand that the maximum sentence for the crime(s) to which I am pleading no contest is: Ct. 1  $5,000/2 yrs. 5. I understand that any plea bargain in my case is set forth here and that there has been no other bargain and no other promise or threat of any kind to induce me to plead no contest. The only plea bargain in my case is: None. The defendant will plead nolo contendere to Count 1 and Count 2 will merge. The Commonwealth recommends consecutive probation to # 1085 of 1987. MRC: jac 6. I understand that the Judge is not bound by the terms of any plea bargain unless he chooses to accept it. The Judge will announce his decision at the conclusion of the plea colloquy which follows my signing this paper. If the Commonwealth agrees to make a sentencing recommendation on my behalf, the Judge will not be bound by this recommendation and I understand that I will not be permitted to withdraw my no contest plea if this should occur. 7. I understand that the Judge who accepts my plea may NOT be the Judge who imposes sentence in my case under Erie County Court Rules. It is still my desire to plead no contest. I HAVE SIGNED THIS PAPER ONLY AFTER FIRST READING AND REVIEWING IT. (Defendant's Statement of Understanding of Rights Prior to No Contest Plea, 12/4/87). (Emphasis added). The above plea bargain created no expectation whatsoever as to what sentence would be imposed. By its clear and fully explained terms, the plea bargain was expressly limited to what sentence the prosecutor would recommend, not what sentence the court would impose. Thus, the prosecutor completely fulfilled his part of the plea bargain at sentencing by offering the recommendation as agreed. (N.T. 1/28/88 at 8). To have permitted appellant to withdraw his no contest plea based upon the trial court's rejection of the prosecution's recommendation, would have ignored the clear limits of the plea agreement and would have permitted precisely the kind of sentence-testing which our Supreme Court expressly condemned in Shaffer, 446 A.2d at 592-93; see also Commonwealth v. Herberg, supra, 452 A.2d at 537. Consequently, we reject entirely appellant's suggestion that his plea bargain was broken.