Court Opinion

ID: 9740214
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:08.621018+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:16.877997
License: Public Domain

GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
I concur with the majority but wish to underscore what I consider to be the main thrust of our holding today.
I agree that it can be mutually advantageous to the State and the accused in certain instances to reach a plea bargain agreement which leaves open to the court some aspect of the dispositional process. I also agree that the record should, and the *1380one before us does, clearly disclose that the accused is aware of the court’s latitude under such a proposed bargain.
The point I would emphasize is that an accused is no longer bound to “take on faith” an assurance that the court “usually” follows the prosecutor’s recommendation. Pursuant to IC 35-5-6-1 et seq., he can insist that no terms be left open with the assurance that the court will be bound by the agreement if it is accepted. See, State ex rel. Goldsmith v. Marion County Superior Court (1981), Ind., 419 N.E.2d 109.
Under that circumstance there appears to me to be no valid reason to limit the ability of the parties to reach a plea bargain that does not bind all aspects of the disposition.
I concur.