Court Opinion

ID: 9740670
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:40:01.112513+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:19.607758
License: Public Domain

BROOK, Judge,
concurring
I fully concur with Judge Vaidik's reasoning and result in this case, but I write separately to suggest a way of avoiding future confusion as to the meaning of similar "no recommendation" provisions in plea agreements.
When the State promises a criminal defendant under a plea agreement that it will offer no sentencing recommendation to the trial court, the better practice might be for the plea agreement to specify that although the prosecuting attorney could not offer such a recommendation, (1) any witness, whether a private citizen or a State agent, may do so by leave of court; and (2) any victim of the defendant's crime, whether a private citizen or a State agent, is entitled to do so under Indiana Code Section 35-85-38-5(b). A "no recommendation" provision is obviously meaningful to a criminal defendant, who might understandably yet mistakenly believe that no one, *249particularly a State agent, will be permitted to make a recommendation at the sentencing hearing. Although prosecutors and defense counsel will be familiar with the meaning of "no recommendation" provisions as explained in Harris and the instant case, it is safe to assume that most criminal defendants will not be. For reasons of fundamental fairness, then, I would encourage its inclusion in written plea agreements where applicable. See Sinn v. State, 693 N.E.2d 78, 80 (Ind.Ct.App.1998) ("The concept of plea bargaining contemplates an explicit agreement between the State and defendant which is binding upon both parties when accepted by the trial court. Strict adherence to the agreement is essential.") (emphasis added) (citation omitted).