Opinion ID: 2125788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Vacating Reffett's Plea

Text: We turn now to the merits. Because of the important role that plea bargaining plays in Indiana's criminal justice system, the legislature has enacted a broad statutory framework detailing the rules of the exercise. Ind. Code §§ 35-35-3-1 to -7 (West 1986 & Supp. 1990). The Court of Appeals correctly noted: This framework provides assurances that the needs and rights of victims, defendants, and society at large are considered before plea agreements are reduced to judgment. Reffett, 557 N.E.2d at 1069-70. To achieve the balance of rights struck by the legislature, it is incumbent that all the parties follow these statutory rules. In this case, the rules were not followed, creating a conflict between society's interest in seeing appropriate punishment meted out, and the defendant's right to receive the benefit of his bargain. [3] The defendant's rights are well recorded. Although a trial court may exercise its discretion to accept or reject a plea agreement, Phillips v. State (1982), Ind., 441 N.E.2d 201, Indiana Code § 35-35-3-3(e) commands: If the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by its terms. Another provision prohibits the court from accepting a plea agreement unless the defendant is first told that the court will be bound to the agreement upon its acceptance. Ind. Code § 35-35-1-2(a)(4) (West 1986). Here, the court declared acceptance of Reffett's first plea agreement: The court accepts a plea of guilty and accepts the plea agreement and finds the defendant guilty of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated, a Class D Felony. Record at 121. The State argues these words of acceptance cannot work a legal acceptance of the agreement because the trial court had not yet considered the presentence report. According to the State, the court lacked the power to accept any plea agreement until after it had considered the presentence report. Since the court did not consider the report until August 12th, no plea could be accepted before this date. The State is correct that the law required the trial court to consider the presentence report before accepting any plea. Indiana Code § 35-35-3-3(a) provides that if the contents of a plea agreement indicate that the prosecuting attorney anticipates that the defendant intends to enter a plea of guilty to a felony charge, the court shall order the presentence report required by IC XX-XX-X-X and may hear evidence on the plea agreement. (West Supp. 1990). Indiana Code § 35-38-1-8 (West 1986) states that a defendant convicted of a felony may not be sentenced before a written presentence report is prepared by a probation officer and considered by the sentencing court. The obvious purpose of this second provision is to ensure that the court has before it all the relevant information it needs about the defendant's background to exercise its discretionary authority in sentencing. If this purpose is to be achieved in cases like this one, in which the court's sentencing discretion is narrowed early by a term in the plea agreement, we think the court must consider the presentence report prior to accepting the plea agreement. [4] After the court has accepted the plea agreement, it loses discretion over sentencing, and the presentence report becomes useless. Thus, the State is correct in its claim that the judge should have considered the presentence report prior to accepting Reffett's plea agreement. The court's failure to do so, however, does not strip it of the power to accept the plea agreement. Once a plea is accepted, a court is bound by all the terms in the plea agreement which are within its legal power to control. Griffin v. State (1984), Ind. 461 N.E.2d 1123 (provision in agreement that State will recommend incarceration in another state not binding on court). It was certainly within the trial court's power to accept or reject the agreement and all its terms were within the court's authority. See Ind. Code § 35-50-2-7 (West 1986); Phillips, 441 N.E.2d at 207. Although the judge had not seen the presentence report prior to his acceptance of the first plea agreement, the judge knew Reffett was not a first time offender. Reffett himself told the court that he had alcoholic tendencies. Reffett's attorney told the court that Reffett was currently incarcerated on another offense, and that he had been adjudged a habitual traffic violator resulting in a lifetime suspension of his driver's license. This information did not go unnoticed. At the end of the hearing, the judge told Reffett: Sir, you should thank your attorney for doing such a wonderful job for you. The court would much rather have sentenced you to four (4) years additional, to be served consecutively. I would much rather have preferred giving you the maximum sir. However, in one of my weak moments I did accept the plea. Record at 121-22. Having accepted Reffett's plea and approved the agreement, the judge was obligated to sentence Reffett in accordance with it. The State finally argues that Reffett waived his right to be sentenced under the first plea agreement by pleading guilty under the second plea agreement. The State cites no cases in support of this waiver theory, and we decline to so hold. While defendants must always take precautions to ensure that they have preserved their claim of error, we see no sense in requiring Reffett to have gone to trial to preserve his claim, as the defendant did in Bartzis, 502 N.E.2d at 1349. The decision of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and we reverse the trial court's denial of Reffett's motion to correct erroneous sentence. The case is remanded to the trial court with instructions to sentence the defendant in accordance with the first plea agreement. DeBRULER, GIVAN, DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur.