Court Opinion

ID: 9609532
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:28:15.026319+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:02:50.931377
License: Public Domain

SCHULZ, Superior Court Judge,
dissenting.
I agree with the majority’s resolution of all issues on these appeals with the exception of the jury trial issue discussed in part G of the majority opinion.
The record demonstrates that Dolchok’s initial waiver of his right to trial by jury was based totally on the agreement reached with the state on the “walk through NGI.” As the majority opinion indicates, the jury trial waiver in this case was part and parcel of the agreement by which this case was to be resolved. While I have no quarrel with the majority’s conclusion that the state had discharged its obligations under the walk through NGI agreement “once Judge Moody ruled that Dolchok was sane” and that “both parties were discharged from the agreement they had reached,” it seems to me that Dolchok should have been offered a jury trial on the partial new trial ordered by Judge Singleton.
A plea agreement is nothing more than a contract, and when one of the parties is *298allowed to rescind his agreement, simple justice requires that the other side be placed on the same footing.
Whether one proceeds on a theory of full performance or of recision, the state has succeeded here in being able to contest the issue of Dolchok’s sanity while holding him to his jury trial waiver under the terms of the original agreement. If the state is no longer bound, I do not believe Dolchok is either.
I would reverse on that issue and remand for a jury trial as to the partial new trial ordered by Judge Singleton.