Court Opinion

ID: 9544952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:03:54.121493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:48.884077
License: Public Domain

Dimmick, J.
(dissenting) — The majority in its fervor to protect the defendant's right of allocution goes beyond the purpose of such right. The majority requires prosecutors to actually advocate a sentencing recommendation which was agreed to in a plea bargain and sets aside a sentence *870because the trial judge failed to listen to that argument. I cannot agree.
The facts of the affray are not as inconsistent as the majority asserts. The judge, sua sponte, requested a presentence report wherein the facts of the assault were set out in great detail, both from the point of view of the defendant and the trooper. Defendant's work record and family situation, his prior record for driving while intoxicated and driving while license suspended, as well as his arrest on a charge of obstruction were discussed. The judge expressed his view at each hearing that he took a "dim view of assaults on police officers". Contrary to the majority's assertion that the defendant's friends were charged with simple assault (majority opinion, at 865), the trooper testified that they were in fact charged with obstruction. Nor does the majority record that defendant in his own handwritten statement on the plea form admitted: "I was involved in an altercation with Officer McMillan and we wrestled to the ground subsequent to the officer attempting to place me under arrest." The judge continued the hearing at the request of defense counsel in order to have Officer McMillan present in court. The officer made a recommendation of 60 days in jail. He was subject to cross examination by defense counsel with no limits being placed on the inquiry. If the defense counsel had wished to go into greater detail of the assault, he certainly had the opportunity.
The prosecutor in the instant case recommended throughout the proceedings that defendant serve no jail time. The judge, upon the request of defendant's counsel that the prosecutor speak in favor of the recommendation, stated:
[The prosecutor] has made his commitment. He has not reneged on the plea bargaining. He made the same recommendation on the last hearing . . . I'm not particularly concerned what [the prosecutor's] feelings are. He's committed himself and he's bound by it. . . . and I'm not going to have you invite [the prosecutor] to change *871his mind because I'm going to hold him to this contract and as far as this Court is concerned [the prosecutor's] recommendation at this time is probation with no jail time.
Subsequently, the judge asked the prosecutor whether no jail time was still his recommendation and the prosecutor replied "That's affirmative, your Honor." The judge emphasized throughout the proceedings that the court was not bound by the plea bargain and would make an independent decision. It is well established that determination of a defendant's sentence is solely within the trial court's discretion. State v. Riddell, 75 Wn.2d 85, 449 P.2d 97 (1968). A trial court may consider whatever information it considers necessary in imposing a sentence. See, e.g., State v. Buntain, 11 Wn. App. 101, 106, 521 P.2d 752 (1974).
At oral argument before this court, the prosecutor was asked what he would have answered, if allowed to speak in favor of his recommendation. He replied: "I probably would have reminded the judge that we didn't have a jail." Ferry County prisoners were therefore sent to either Okanogan, Stevens or Spokane jail while Ferry County paid their board bills. The question now becomes, under the majority's holding, Is this a reasonable explanation? Obviously, the judge was well aware of this fact since he allowed the defendant to serve his time on work release and told him to work it out with Stevens County as there was a waiting list in the Okanogan County Jail. It may be, in some instances, that an explanation of a prosecutor's reasons for entering into a plea agreement is relevant. A trial court, however, should not be compelled to consider the explanation in exercising its discretion. The majority apparently confuses their modus habilis with a legal requirement.
The majority adopts the reasoning of a divided court in United States v. Brown, 500 F.2d 375 (4th Cir. 1974), requiring a prosecutor to strongly advocate a sentencing recommendation agreed upon in a plea bargain. Brown has been read to require that a prosecutor be a persuasive advocate. United States v. Grandinetti, 564 F.2d 723, 727 *872(5th Cir. 1977). The majority adopts these principles as they are important to its reasoning although it recognizes that the prosecutor did not breach the agreement. The prosecutor made the sentencing recommendation and he acknowledged it. He made no equivocal comments. I would not require, in addition, that a prosecutor strongly and persuasively advocate the recommendation. I agree with the Court of Appeals dissent, Munson, J., that, "Presumably the defendant has able counsel to do that [advocate] on his behalf; it is unnecessary for the State to supply additional advocacy by its own representative." State v. Peterson, 29 Wn. App. 655, 662, 630 P.2d 480 (1981).
The majority compels the judge to listen to the prosecutor's explanations upon defendant's request. It thus invites an unintentional breach (verbal or nonverbal) of its newly adopted requirement of advocacy. The judge here expressly endeavored to prevent such breach. The majority attempts to minimize the effect of its holding by stating: "Provided that the prosecutor reasonably explains his recommendation for leniency, the defendant will be deemed to have waived his right to assert that the prosecutor has breached his plea agreement." Majority opinion, at 869. It then cites Brown and Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427, 92 S. Ct. 495 (1971), neither of which supports its statement. Santobello merely requires that a prosecutor fulfill the promise made. Brown, as noted above, requires advocacy, not a "reasonable explanation." Taking this distinction to its logical end, a prosecutor may in fact give a reasonable explanation which is unpersuasive or does not strongly advocate the recommendation. If so, the prosecutor has breached the agreement under Brown and Grandinetti. The majority's "caveat" is incongruous.
The majority rests its decision on the cavalier statement that the trial court's refusal to allow the prosecuting attorney to speak "constituted an abuse of discretion". Majority opinion, at 869. This issue was never alleged, briefed or argued. In view of the maxim "the law does not require a useless act," it seems to me that since the trial court *873repeatedly expressed its own distaste for police officer assaulters and took into consideration the recommendations of the presentence report as well as that of the victim officer, refusal to allow the prosecutor to explain his recommendation can hardly be such an abuse of discretion as to require a new sentence. Consequently, I would hold that the trial court committed no error, and, therefore, the original sentence should be reinstated. Accordingly, I dissent.
Brachtenbach, C.J., and Stafford and Dolliver, JJ., concur with Dimmick, J.