Court Opinion

ID: 9730860
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:26:32.829048+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:10.215216
License: Public Domain

J. H. Gillis, J.
(concurring in part; dissenting in part). I concur in the majority’s holding that the defendant should have been permitted to withdraw his plea when it became clear that the trial court had rejected the prosecutor’s agreement to encourage a delayed sentence. If, as defendant asserts, a delayed sentence would have been the rule rather than the exception in a case such as this in St. Clair County, it would not be fair to allow defendant to plead guilty to the crime with which he was chargedon the prosecutor’s assurance that he would “encourage” a delayed sentence. That assurance implied a result which the prosecutor was powerless to guarantee, but a teenaged defendant should not be expected to know that.
I cannot agree that, in all cases, a trial judge is precluded from communicating with a probation officer or presentence investigator outside of defense counsel’s presence. Rather, I would hold that such action would only be improper if it was prejudicial to defendant. In this case, the presentence investigator recommended a delayed sentence, and the trial judge stated that he received no information' from the investigator which was not also contained in the presentence report. These facts suggest that the ex parte conversation likely involved the trial court’s inquiry why a delayed sentence was recommended. The court may also have inquired as to defendant’s educational status and the nature of his extracurricular activities, given that defendant’s 30-day jail sentence was qualified by the proviso that he be *117permitted to leave the jail when necessary in order to attend school and football practice and play in several football games. In any event, there is nothing in the record which even hints at prejudice to defendant. As such, I see no harm in the trial judge’s ex parte conversation with the presentence investigator.