Court Opinion

ID: 9518411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:52:14.331271+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:53.930455
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
I agree with the dissent by Rawlings, J., that the procedure in this case did not com*516port with ABA Standards, The Function of the Trial Judge, § 4.1(c) (1972), approved unanimously by the court in State v. Fisher, 223 N.W.2d 243 (Iowa 1974), and again in State v. Runge, 228 N.W.2d 35 (Iowa 1975). The standard does not authorize denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea when the judge has forewarned the defendant he will not be bound by the prosecutor’s recommendation. It requires the judge in any case in which he decides in fact not to follow the prosecutor’s recommendation, whether he has forewarned the defendant or not, to notify the defendant he will not do so and accord the defendant the opportunity at that time to withdraw his plea. United States ex rel. Culbreath v. Rundle, 466 F.2d 730 (3 Cir. 1972); Commonwealth v. Wilson, 335 A.2d 777 (Pa.Super.1975); Quintana v. Robinson, 31 Conn.Sup. 22, 319 A.2d 515 (1973).
The ABA standard approved by the court in Fisher does not depend for its applicability upon proof the defendant entered his plea from a belief the court would follow the prosecutor’s recommendation. As the commentary to the rule makes clear, the standard is preventive. It seeks to avoid false inducement in some cases by removing the occasion for false inducement in all cases. ABA Standards, The Function of the Trial Judge, supra, commentary at 57 (“Even though the judge has said nothing to the defendant * * * except that he need not follow the prosecutor’s recommendations, there nevertheless remains at least the taint of false inducement.”).
I concur in the result because this guilty plea and sentencing proceeding antedated the decision of this court in Fisher, and defendant’s guilty plea has not been shown to have been the result of unlawful inducement under standards then applicable. The sentencing occurred here September 25, 1974, and Fisher was decided November 13, 1974. Like the prophylactic standards adopted by the court in State v. Sisco, 169 N.W.2d 542 (Iowa 1969), I believe the Fisher standard should be prospective in its operation. See State v. Vantrump, 170 N.W.2d 453, 454 (Iowa 1969).
MASON, J., joins this special concurrence.