Opinion ID: 852393
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Plea Bargaining in the Regular Order

Text: In general, a defendant may not challenge a guilty plea through direct appeal. Tumulty v. State, 666 N.E.2d 394 (Ind.1996). The path to challenging the plea and conviction runs by way of a petition for post-conviction relief. Crain v. State, 261 Ind. 272, 301 N.E.2d 751 (Ind. 1973). A direct appeal of sentencing may lie, however, when a trial court exercises some discretion in fashioning a sentence. Collins v. State, 817 N.E.2d 230, 231 (Ind. 2004). Such a plea agreement is often referred to as an open plea. Id. A plea agreement is contractual in nature, binding the defendant, the state, and the trial court, once the judge accepts it. Pannarale v. State, 638 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind.1994); State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion County Super. Ct., 275 Ind. 545, 419 N.E.2d 109 (Ind.1981). The trial court's role with respect to such agreements is described by statute: (b) ... If the plea agreement is not accepted, the court shall reject it before the case may be disposed of by trial or by guilty plea. If the court rejects the plea agreement, subsequent plea agreements may be filed with the court, subject to the same requirements that this chapter imposes upon the initial plea agreement.... (e) If the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by its terms. Ind.Code § 35-35-3-3 (2008). Thus, once a sentencing court accepts a plea agreement, it possesses only that degree of sentencing discretion provided in the agreement. Freije v. State, 709 N.E.2d 323, 324-25 (Ind.1999); Goldsmith, 275 Ind. at 552, 419 N.E.2d at 114. Bargaining between the State and a pleading defendant will have produced for court consideration an agreement that either specifies a precise penalty or leaves some or all of the specifics to the judgment of the trial court. [1] St. Clair claims the trial court had the broad discretion to impose the recommended sentence, or a lesser sentence, or a harsher sentence within statutory and other legal limits. (Appellant's Br. at 11.) St. Clair does not point to any substantial evidence that he, his lawyer, the prosecutor, or Judge Fee intended or understood this to be the case. [2] His central argument that the parties intended an open agreement rests on the agreement's use of the word recommend. ( Id. at 11-12.) St. Clair says the State really made two recommendations: a recommendation that the court accept the agreement and a recommendation about sentence, both non-binding. (Appellant's Reply Br. at 5.) St. Clair emphasizes the necessity that recommend must mean something that is non-binding. Because no plea agreement is binding until the trial court accepts it, his definition would cover both open and fixed agreements. Furthermore, this Court has heard numerous cases in which plea agreements are quoted or described as recommending a sentence that we treated as fixed agreements. See, e.g., Pannarale, 638 N.E.2d at 1248 (Once it has accepted a plea agreement recommending a specific sentence, however, the terms of the agreement constrain the discretion the court would otherwise employ in sentencing.). Accord, Brightman v. State, 758 N.E.2d 41, 43 (Ind.2001); Dewitt v. State, 755 N.E.2d 167, 169 (Ind.2001); Freije, 709 N.E.2d at 326; Reffett v. State, 571 N.E.2d 1227, 1227-28 (Ind.1991). [3] Finally, the plea agreement fashioned by the parties uses recommend only in the sentencing section, which is also the only section that binds the State to act. (Appellant's App. at 17.) The other two sections state the defendant will plead guilty and waives certain rights, such as the right to a direct appeal. ( Id. ) Using the phrase will recommend in this but not the other two sections thus makes sense. While it could be more explicit that the court has no discretion to alter the terms of the agreement  only to accept or reject it in its entirety  the normal use of the word recommend in Indiana plea bargaining clearly justifies its use here. In this context, the parties clearly did not intend to present an open plea agreement to the court. The great weight of the evidence suggests that all the parties understood St. Clair's agreement was one that specified a particular sentence if the court approved the agreement and accepted the plea.