Court Opinion

ID: 9774484
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 18:22:08.293995+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:09.060149
License: Public Domain

*587HARRELL, J., dissenting, which ADKINS, J., joins.
The Majority opinion claims, in reaching its conclusion, that it applies the principles of contract law. It only does so, however, where convenient. It seems to “cherry-pick” those principles that support its view of what the law should be, while discarding the remainder. This approach often leaves uncertainty where there was none before. Accordingly, I dissent.
I.
Petitioner, Raymond B. Cuffley, Jr., was charged with one count of robbery, which carried a maximum sentence of fifteen years’ incarceration. In exchange for pleading guilty, the State promised to ask for—and the court agreed to impose—a sentence that was “within the guidelines.”1 The parties concurred that such a sentence would be between four and eight years. At the plea hearing, the court confirmed these terms and made clear that “[a]ny conditions of probation [were still] entirely within [its] discretion.” Accordingly, after ensuring that Petitioner’s plea was knowing and voluntary, the court imposed a fifteen-year sentence, suspending all but six of those years in favor of a five-year probationary period. Thus, Cuffley was facing an immediate period of incarceration of up to six years and, were he to violate the terms of probation, possibly the back-up time.
This sentence, the Majority opinion says, was illegal. In reaching this conclusion, the Majority opinion begins by noting correctly that, for the most part, we apply the civil law of contracts to the interpretation of criminal plea agreements. See Majority op. at 579-80, 7 A.3d at 563-64. It also relies on Maryland Rule 4-243, which requires that “ ‘the defense counsel and the State’s Attorney ... advise the judge of the terms of the agreement ... ’ ” and that the court “ ‘embody ... the *588agreed sentence’” in its judgment. Majority op. at 581, 7 A.3d at 564-65. Finally, the Majority opinion states accurately that “the terms of a plea agreement are to be construed ‘according to the reasonable understanding of the defendant when he pled guilty.’” Majority op. at 581, 7 A.3d at 564 (quoting Solorzano v. State, 397 Md. 661, 668, 919 A.2d 652, 656 (2007)).
Armed with these basic propositions, the Majority opinion then frames two broad penultimate conclusions. First, “Rule 4-243 requires strict compliance with its provisions.” Majority op. at 582, 7 A.3d at 565. Consequently, in interpreting any plea agreement (be it oral or written), an appellate court may consider only what is said, on the record, at the plea hearing. See id. Second, in construing what were the terms of the plea agreement “according to the reasonable understanding of the defendant,” Solorzano 397 Md. at 668, 919 A.2d at 656, we must consider what a “reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position” would have thought them to be. Majority op. at 582, 7 A.3d at 565.
The Majority opinion concludes ultimately and unhesitatingly that “a reasonable lay person in [Cuffley’s] position would not understand that the court could impose the sentence it did.” Majority op. at 585, 7 A.3d at 567. Rather, he or she would have understood the word “sentence” to mean a “total sentence of no more than eight years, a portion of which the court in its discretion might suspend in favor of a period of probation, with conditions.” Id. (emphasis added).
For reasons I shall explain, our pre-existing precedents supply us with a clear and narrow way to resolve this matter, without going where the Majority opinion goes. The Majority opinion, in my estimation, rewrites that precedent and creates a new analytical framework. Then, it applies that newly-installed framework incorrectly. As a result, formidable uncertainties are injected into our jurisprudence and the future operation of the criminal justice system.
II.
In interpreting plea agreements in criminal law contexts, courts apply routinely contract law principles. When inter*589preting contracts, Maryland courts follow the objective approach. See General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Daniels, 303 Md. 254, 261, 492 A.2d 1306, 1310 (1985); Towson Univ. v. Conte, 384 Md. 68, 78, 862 A.2d 941, 946 (2004). If contract language (be it oral or written) is clear and unambiguous, a court limits its interpretation to that language alone. See Marr v. Langhoff, 322 Md. 657, 667-68, 589 A.2d 470, 475 (1991); Son v. Margolius, 114 Md.App. 190, 212-13, 689 A.2d 645, 656 (1997), rev’d on other grounds, 349 Md. 441, 709 A.2d 112 (1998), reconsideration denied, (4 June 1998). It does not factor into the equation the actual intent of the parties. See Kasten Constr. Co., Inc. v. Rod Enterprises, Inc., 268 Md. 318, 327-28, 301 A.2d 12, 17 (1973). If, however, the language of a written contract is unclear or ambiguous, a court may consider extrinsic, intent-related evidence. See Brendsel v. Winchester Constr. Co., 392 Md. 601, 625-26, 898 A.2d 472, 486-87 (2006). In the case of an oral contract, if the existence of the contract or its terms is disputed, then, again a court may consider extrinsic evidence. See Son, 114 Md.App. at 212-23, 689 A.2d at 656.
Plea agreements, of course, implicate more than contract rights. As such, exclusive application of contract law is not appropriate. Rather, “[d]ue process concerns for fairness and the adequacy of procedural safeguards” also must guide a court’s interpretation. Solorzano, 397 Md. at 668, 919 A.2d at 656. Nonetheless, “in an appropriate case,” “[pjrivate law interpretive principles may be wholly dispositive.” United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir.1986).2
*590III.
A. The Majority Opinion Reads Rule 4-243 Too Broadly.
The Majority opinion begins its analysis correctly by comparing the plea agreement in the present case to a contract. Usually, written contracts have four well-defined corners within which a court confines its analysis. The Majority opinion seeks to establish the four corners of this unwritten plea agreement by construction of Md. Rule 4-243. See Majority op. at 581, 7 A.3d at 564 (“The parties disagree ... about whether ... evidence outside the ‘four comers’ of the plea agreement itself[ ] may be considered____”).
In particular, the Majority opinion reaches for two phrases. First, it recites a portion of sub-part (b) of the Rule, which states that “defense counsel and the State’s attorney shall advise the judge of the terms of the agreement when the defendant pleads.” It also turns to sub-part (c) for the requirement that a court “embody ... the agreed sentence” in its judgment. From these two phrases, the Majority divines that “the principal purpose of Rule 4-243 is to eliminate the possibility that the defendant may not fully comprehend the nature of the agreement before pleading guilty.” Majority op. at 581, 7 A.3d at 565. Without more, the Majority then concludes that Rule 4-243 requires “strict compliance with its provisions,” and that, as a result, “any question ... later arising] concerning the meaning of the sentencing term of a binding plea agreement must be resolved by resort solely to the record established at the Rule 4-243 plea proceeding.” Majority op. at 582, 7 A.3d at 565 (emphasis in original). I challenge how the Majority opinion leapfrogs from Rule 4-243 “requiring] recordation ... of the terms of the [plea] agreement,” State v. Poole, 321 Md. 482, 498, 583 A.2d 265, 273 (1991), to “any question ... must be resolved by resort solely to the [plea hearing] record,” Majority op. at 582, 7 A.3d at 565 (emphasis in original).
Rule 4-243 does not say that, in interpreting a plea agreement, a reviewing court may only consider the record of the plea hearing. Indeed, the Rule allows for a trial court to defer its decision on a plea agreement until pre-sentence *591reports or investigations are conducted. See Rule 4-243(c). If these reports reveal, for example, a previously undisclosed criminal history, then the plea agreement may be altered at the sentencing hearing. See id. Is the Majority suggesting that a reviewing court could not consider the sentencing hearing record, if a dispute as to an agreement later arises? I think not; however, that is left unclear.3 But see Baines v. State, 416 Md. 604, 623-28, 7 A.3d 578, 589-92 (2010) (Harrell, J., dissenting) (companion case, argued and decided at the same time as Cuffley, where the record of the sentencing hearing was consulted to help show that the parties had a common understanding as to the terms of a plea agreement).
B. The Majority Opinion Wrongly Transmutes “Reasonable Understanding of the Defendant” into “Reasonable Lay Person in the Defendant’s Position.”
After misreading Rule 4-243 to limit the scope of proper analysis, the Majority also transmutes (albeit subtly) our previous precedent, as explained in Tweedy v. State, 380 Md. 475, 482, 845 A.2d 1215, 1219 (2004), and Solorzano, 397 Md. at 668, 919 A.2d at 656. In Tweedy, we held that courts should construe plea agreement terms “according to what a defen*592dant reasonably understood” when he or she pled guilty. 380 Md. at 482, 845 A.2d at 1219. In Solorzano, we held that courts should construe plea agreement terms “according to the reasonable understanding of the defendant” when he or she pled guilty. 397 Md. at 668, 919 A.2d at 656. Arguably, both of these standards are subjective, for they focus on the understanding of their particular defendants, rather than the understanding of other “reasonable lay person[s].... ” Majority op. at 582, 7 A.3d at 565; see Solorzano, 397 Md. at 671, 919 A.2d at 658 (finding dispositive the fact that its “[defendant’s] understanding was reasonable____”).
By rearranging a few words, the Majority opinion seems to be applying an objective standard, as found in the objective law of contracts. Under that approach, courts construe a contract according to “what a reasonably prudent person in the same position would have understood as to [its] meaning----” Cochran v. Norkunas, 398 Md. 1, 17, 919 A.2d 700, 710 (2007). We never have held expressly, before now, that courts should apply this standard to plea agreements.4 Although I agree that, where appropriate, courts should apply contract principles to plea agreements (including the objective law of contracts), if not for certainty’s sake alone, I doubt whether this step in the Majority opinion’s analysis was necessary because there are at least three other, narrower ways to resolve Cuffley’s case. See Part IV, infra.
IV. The Majority Opinion Reaches the Wrong Conclusion Under Its Newly-Installed Analytical Framework
The trial court sentenced Petitioner to a period of actual incarceration and a period of probation. The question is whether Cuffley knew, or should have known, the court could impose the sentence it did.5 Indeed, the sum and substance of *593the Majority opinion is that “[b]ased on [the plea hearing] record, a reasonable lay person in Petitioner’s position would not understand that the court could impose the sentence it did.” Majority op. at 585, 7 A.3d at 567. Even were we to assume, however, that (1) Rule 4-243 controls the scope of our analysis, as claimed by the Majority, (2) it limits that inquiry to the plea hearing record, and (3) the analytical standard to be applied is “a reasonable lay person in the [specific] defendant’s position,” the Majority opinion still reaches a legally unsound conclusion.
Assuming, without conceding, that the plea hearing is the sole source from which a court now may draw its conclusion, it behooves us to reconstruct its proceedings. There is not much controversy here—Petitioner agreed to plead guilty to one count of robbery. In exchange, the trial court promised to impose a sentence “within the guidelines,” which was calculated to be “four to eight years.” Moreover, the trial court made clear that “[a]ny conditions of probation [were still] entirely within [its] discretion.” Accordingly, at the sentencing hearing, the court imposed a fifteen-year sentence, suspending all but six of those years in favor of a five-year *594probationary period. Although not oft-cited by the parties (or the Majority opinion), it should also be noted that, at the plea hearing, Petitioner was advised that a guilty plea in a subsequent case may be seen as a violation of probation, and that such a violation could lead to additional incarceration. Thus, the court put Cuffley on notice that probation was possible.
On the basis of this record, the Majority opinion claims a reasonable person would not have known the court could impose the sentence it did. It is mistaken for at least three reasons.
A. The Parties Incorporated the Sentencing Guidelines by Reference.
To show that Cuffley and his counsel knew, or should have known, the court could impose the sentence it did, we must analyze separately the two components of the sentence—the period of actual incarceration and the period of probation. As I explain below, the principle of “incorporation by reference” accounts only for the period of actual incarceration, while the reasonable person standard (the topic of Part IV.B, infra) accounts for both periods. As such, I will discuss only the period of actual incarceration in this section, and both periods in the reasonable person section.
When an existing document is “ ‘incorporated by reference’ into a subsequent contract, it simply means that the [existing] document is made a part of [that subsequent contract], as if the [existing] document were fully set forth therein.” Hartford Accident & Indem. Co. v. Scarlett Harbor Associates, 109 Md.App. 217, 292, 674 A.2d 106, 142 (1996) (citing Wheaton Triangle Lanes, Inc. v. Rinaldi, 286 Md. 525, 531, 204 A.2d 537, 540 (1964)). Where incorporation by reference occurs, the existing documents and the contract “are to be read and construed together” as if they were one. Bachmann v. Glazer & Glazer, Inc., 316 Md. 405, 415, 559 A.2d 365, 369-70 (1989). The documents and the contract, in other words, all figure into “what a reasonably prudent person in the same position would *595have understood as to the meaning of the agreement.” Cochran, 398 Md. at 17, 919 A.2d at 710.
In Wheaton Triangle Lanes, Inc., two brothers owned multiple bowling businesses. 236 Md. at 527, 204 A.2d at 538. These businesses were all indebted to one another in varying amounts. See id. After a rift developed between them, the brothers decided to divide their ownership interests. See id. To that end, they drafted and signed a settlement agreement that, in part, would help them resolve those inter-business debts. See id. Afterward, the brothers also executed general releases; however, the inter-business debts were left intact. See id. For present purposes, it is relevant only that this Court construed the documents together because the general releases referenced the settlement agreement. See Wheaton Triangle Lanes, Inc. at 531, 204 A.2d at 540. It was enough that the later general releases said “the obligations assumed and the rights of indemnity arising out of the [earlier] settlement agreement should be fulfilled.” Wheaton Triangle Lanes, Inc., 236 Md. at 528, 204 A.2d at 538.
In the instant case, the plea hearing record shows that the participants all agreed to a sentence “within the guidelines.” The State and defense counsel noted, on the record, that they computed jointly the proper Sentencing Guidelines range. (“[T]he State will recommend a sentence within the guidelines formulated by myself and Miss Casper[, defense counsel] .... ”). Thus, it is clear the parties intended to (and did) incorporate the Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual into their negotiations and final agreement. As in Wheaton, it is enough that the parties referenced the Guidelines and stated that their agreed-upon recommended sentence arose directly out of it. Therefore, in construing this plea agreement, we should consider that the parties were not creating their own nuanced definition of the word “sentence,” but rather were adopting the definition provided by the Guidelines.6 The *596Guidelines make clear that a sentence within its “range represents only non-suspended,” or executed, time. Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 8.1, p. 36 (2001).7
*597The law assumes that reasonable lay persons “contract mindful of the existing law,” Wright v. Commercial & Sav. Bank, 297 Md. 148, 153, 464 A.2d 1080, 1083 (1983),8 and that includes incorporation by reference. We need not rely on this more generic assumption here, however; the record shows that a “reasonable lay person in Petitioner’s position” is one represented by counsel, and, in the criminal context, we presume that counsel discuss the details of a plea with their clients. See State v. Priet, 289 Md. 267, 290, 424 A.2d 349, 360-61 (1981) (presuming that counsel explained enough about the nature of the charge to make the plea voluntary); Gilliam v. State, 320 Md. 637, 652, 579 A.2d 744, 751 (1990) (citation omitted) (presuming that “where the accused has counsel ... he has been informed of his rights,” absent evidence to the contrary); State v. Kenney, 327 Md. 354, 363-364, 609 A.2d 337, 342 (1992) (citing Priet and Gilliam for the proposition that, when the defendant is represented, “it should be presumed that [the] counsel gave [the defendant] full advice of his options”).
*598Thus, “incorporation by reference” accounts for the first component of the sentence, the period of actual incarceration. Moreover, as explained below, the reasonable person standard accounts for the second component, the period of probation (as discussed below). As a result, Cuffley knew, or should have known, that the court could impose the sentence it did.
B. The Majority Opinion’s “Reasonable Person” Is Not Reasonable At All.
Aside from the principle of incorporation by reference, the Majority opinion is incorrect for a second reason—because its reasonable person is not reasonable at all. In concluding that Cuffley did not know, and had no reason to know, that the court could impose the sentence it did, the Majority opinion asserts that a “reasonable lay person” would have understood the word “sentence” to mean “total sentence,” including probation. Majority op. at 585-86, 7 A.3d at 567. That is a conclusion I cannot accept. A reasonable lay person would have understood the word “sentence” to mean “prison sentence,” and the word “probation” to mean “probation.” thereby accounting for both parts of the disposition.
As part of our objective approach to contract interpretation, we enforce the “customary, ordinary, and accepted meaning” of contract language. Walton v. Manner Health of Md., Inc., 391 Md. 643, 660, 894 A.2d 584, 594 (2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Cochran, 398 Md. at 17, 919 A.2d at 710. The same is true, or ought to be, for plea agreements. See Rankin v. State, 174 Md.App. 404, 409, 921 A.2d 863, 866, cert. denied, 400 Md. 649, 929 A.2d 891 (2007) (holding that, where the terms of a plea agreement are in dispute, “[t]he words employed ... are to be given their ordinary and usual meaning, in light of the context within which they are employed.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)); United States v. Holbrook, 368 F.3d 415, 420 (4th Cir.2004) vacated, 545 U.S. 1125, 125 S.Ct. 2934, 162 L.Ed.2d 863 (2005) (holding that, where the terms of a plea agreement are in dispute, “[w]e enforce a contract’s plain *599language in its ordinary sense.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
Confining ourselves to the “four corners” of the plea hearing, the record shows that a “reasonable lay person” would have given the word “sentence” its “customary, ordinary, and accepted meaning”—a prison sentence. Put a different way, a “reasonable lay person” would not have viewed a common word like “sentence” in such an artificial and technical way, as the Majority and Cuffley (at least on appeal) do. Indeed, the Majority opinion would have us believe that if you approached any Marylander on the street and asked him or her to define the word “sentence,” he or she would tell you it means a period of years, “a portion of which [a] court in its discretion might suspend in favor of a period of probation, with conditions.” Majority op. at 585-86, 7 A.Sd at 567. Because this word and its definition are so common, if the trial court meant something else, according to the Majority opinion, it should have said so. Majority op. at 585, 7 A.3d at 567 (“No mention was made ... that the four-to-eight-year sentence referred to executed time only.”).
I believe, rather, a reasonable person in the defendant’s position—that is, a reasonable person standing before a court that holds his liberty in its hands—would fear the worst. When he hears the court say it is going to impose “a sentence somewhere within the guidelines,” he would think that he is going to prison, right now, for a period of time within those Guidelines. He would not think, “It’s okay, the judge was only telling me about my ‘total exposure.’ I still could get all probation in the end.”
The conclusion that Cuffley knew “sentence” meant only “prison sentence” becomes even stronger when one considers the fact that the trial court informed Cuffley that probation was still within its discretion and a separate, “additional” penalty. Indeed, Cuffley heard the court reserve explicitly for itself, as part of the plea agreement, the power to include a period of probation. He heard, in other words, the court clearly draw a line between a sentence of incarceration and post-incarceration probation. Moreover, before tendering his *600plea, Petitioner was advised that committing future crimes and/or pleading guilty to future criminal charges may result in probation violations and, thus, “additional penalties].” As a result, he was on notice that a probation violation was an “additional penalty,” which should not be confused with one’s original sentence of incarceration.
Taken together, the record shows that a reasonable lay person in defendant’s position would realize that “the court could impose the sentence that it did.” Majority op. at 585, 7 A.3d at 567. Cuffley received exactly what he bargained for9 —a prison sentence within the Guidelines, followed by a probationary period within the trial court’s discretion. If he violates probation, he could face additional penalties.10
The Majority opinion dismisses the court’s comments on probation, saying “a reasonable lay person in Petitioner’s position could understand [them] to mean that the court reserved the right to suspend a part of what, at most, would be an eight-year sentence and impose a period of probation----” Majority op. at 585, 7 A.3d at 567 (emphasis added). For the reasons discussed above, I do not consider such an interpretation to be reasonable. Even if it is, however, it is of no moment—the question is not what a reasonable *601lay person could have understood. The proper framing of the question is what a reasonable lay person would have understood.
C. The Majority Opinion Presumes that Finding Ambiguity Entitles Petitioner to Automatic Relief.
The Majority opinion posits that, if the plea agreement was ambiguous, Petitioner should prevail nonetheless. That is because concerns for due process and procedural safeguards require us, it asserts, to resolve that ambiguity against the State. See id. I agree that, in most cases, an ambiguous or unclear term requires us to hold the State to a higher standard. This is because constitutional and supervisory concerns, when implicated, override private law. See n. 2, supra; Solorzano, 397 Md. at 668, 919 A.2d at 656.
To say that the discovery of ambiguity, however, reflexively should end our analysis and result in the immediate award of relief to a defendant is incorrect. Granted, in most cases, ambiguities should be resolved against the State; but what of the case where “extrinsic evidence [shows] that the parties to an ambiguously worded plea agreement actually had agreed— or mutually manifested their assent to—a[ single] interpretation”? Harvey, 791 F.2d at 303. With today’s Majority opinion, we preclude ourselves from ever discovering such a case. From this point forward, if we encounter ambiguity in a plea agreement, we will go no further. Instead, we will cage our analysis and accept the defendant’s interpretation or, at least, one favorable to him or her. That is true even where, as here, there is a wealth of extrinsic evidence demonstrating a mutual manifestation of assent. It is also true where, as here, neither due process nor procedural safeguard issues are implicated. And it is true where, as here, equity would demand otherwise.
In my view, the terms of the plea agreement were clear— Cuffley agreed to a prison sentence within the guidelines, followed by a period of probation. If the terms were ambiguous, however, we should look first at the extrinsic evidence and ask whether, despite the ambiguity, the parties actually *602had agreed to a single interpretation. If, and only if, the extrinsic evidence is not dispositive should we hold the State to a higher standard.
For the foregoing reasons, I would affirm the judgments of the Court of Special Appeals and the Circuit Court for Harford County.
Judge ADKINS authorizes me to state that she joins in the views expressed in this dissenting opinion.

. See Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual (2001). The provisions of the Sentencing Guidelines relevant to the present case have remained unchanged since Cuffley entered his plea.

. For example, in most cases, a court should be able to decide “whether a written [plea] agreement is ambiguous” on the basis of contract law alone. United States v. Harvey, 191 F.2d 294, 300 (4th Cir.1986). In other cases, however, “constitutional [or] supervisory concerns” must trump private law. Harvey, 791 F.2d at 300-01. That is, the strict application of contract principles should give way if necessary to protect a defendant's due process rights or promote the "effective administration of justice.” Harvey, 791 F.2d at 300 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); see Solorzano v. State, 397 Md. 661, 668, 919 A.2d 652, 656 (2007).

. In addition to misreading Rule 4-243’s requirements, the Majority opinion also misinterprets its purpose. In Poole v. State, 77 Md.App. 105, 120 n. 7, 549 A.2d 417, 424 n. 7 (1988), aff'd, 321 Md. 482, 583 A.2d 265 (1991), the Court of Special Appeals held that one of the policies underlying Rule 4-243 is to “inject certainty into the criminal justice system.” In affirming the intermediate court’s decision, we added that "the policy underlying all of Rule 4-243 is to promote fair play and equity.” State v. Poole, 321 Md. 482, 498, 583 A.2d 265, 273 (1991). According to the Majority opinion here, however, Rule 4-243 is much more one-sided. It is not about the justice system, or ensuring its fairness and impartiality; it is only about the defendant. Rule 4-243’s "principal purpose ... is to eliminate the possibility that the defendant may not fully comprehend the nature of the agreement before pleading guilty.” Majority op. at 581, 7 A.3d at 565. That is more the province of Rule 4-242. In any event, under its own objective, "reasonable lay person” standard, see Part III.B, infra, the Majority opinion should have said Rule 4-243’s "principal purpose ... is to eliminate the possibility that [a reasonable lay person in the defendant’s position ] may not fully comprehend ... the agreement....”

. Thus, the State stood on solid ground in this case when it argued to this Court that “the appropriate inquiry [should be] first, what did the defendant in the case at bar understand; and second, was that understanding reasonable[.]“

. The Majority opinion (and the parties) seem to get stuck in an artificial and technical view of how sentences are imposed. As a *593practical matter, when courts impose any period of probation, their language must (and should) be precise. Costello v. State, 240 Md. 164, 168, 213 A.2d 739, 741 (1965) ("Sentencing is a definite and objective matter....”). They must define the counters of that period of probation. To do so, they often say the sentence will be “X years, with all but Y years suspended.” Benedict v. State, 377 Md. 1, 8, 831 A.2d 1060, 1064 (2003) (noting that if a defendant violates probation, the court "determines how much of the unserved part of the sentence [he or she] must serve in prison.”); Ridenour v. State, 142 Md.App. 1, 7, 787 A.2d 815, 819 (2001) ("[A] lesser suspended period of years is carved out of the total sentence and is not executed.”); Rankin v. State, 174 Md.App. 404, 410, 921 A.2d 863, 867, cert. denied, 400 Md. 649, 929 A.2d 891 (2007) ("[W]hen a trial court suspends a sentence, it will impose probation as a matter of course.”).
Although precise, this legalistic language tends to confuse interpretive issues. To determine how a reasonable lay person would have understood his or her plea agreement, we ought to be more straightforward. Thus, in these circumstances, I think it better to discuss periods of incarceration and probation. After all, when reasonable lay persons negotiate plea agreement terms, they are not negotiating over non-suspended and suspended portions, but over incarceration and probation.

. The Majority opinion injects a large dose of uncertainty into the operation of the Guidelines in the criminal justice system. After today, parties in criminal cases will no longer know whether, and to what *596extent, contract principles apply to plea agreements. That is because the Majority opinion contravenes basic principles of human interaction—that people mean what they say, and not some skewed version thereof that facilitates a later-arising strategic or tactical motive. When parties negotiate and develop an agreement, we ought to respect that process and enforce the terms of that agreement. Here, the parties used the Sentencing Guidelines as the context and foundation of their negotiations. More importantly, though, they did not pick and choose among its many provisions, but relied on the Sentencing Guidelines in its entirety. This was not an accident. To say, subsequently, that the Sentencing Guidelines do not control is to ignore the parties’ express wishes, at the time of agreement, and injects uncertainty in future plea negotiations.

. The Cuffley Majority opinion's footnote 5 (Majority op. at 582-83, 7 A.3d at 565) exaggerates a bit the weight and import to be accorded properly to its major "authority,” footnote 2 of Solorzano, 397 Md. at 674 n. 2, 919 A.2d at 659 n. 2.
The Solorzano footnote, appearing at the very end of the Court’s opinion, states in its entirety:
At oral argument, the question arose whether, if appellant were to be resentenced, a sentence of life, suspend all but twenty years, would conform with the twelve to twenty year sentence agreed upon between appellant and the State. The State argued that any portion of a sentence which is suspended is not considered when determining whether a sentence falls within the guidelines range. See Maryland State Commission on Criminal Sentencing Policy, Maryland Sentencing Guidelines Manual, §§ 12. 1, p. 42 (2005) (stating that “[sjuspended time is not considered in determining whether the sentence falls within the recommended guidelines. The guidelines range represents only non-suspended time.” (emphasis in original)). Whether a life sentence, suspend all but twenty years (carrying parole conditions not applicable to the twenty year sentence), is the same as a sentence of twelve to twenty years, was not explicitly raised on appeal, and was not briefed by either party. Nonetheless, appellant in the case sub judice was never advised by the trial court that he was facing a life sentence. Assuming, without deciding that the State is correct, if the State is relying on the guidelines provision, the State must make absolutely clear, on the record, that it is doing so, and the defendant must be fully advised as such. For these reasons, we do not address the issue.
397 Md. at 674 n. 2, 919 A.2d at 659 n. 2 (emphasis supplied).
The Majority opinion here claims that the Solorzano footnote stands for the following:
*597[T]his Court unanimously stated that, if the State, as part of a plea bargain, wished to rely on the Guidelines Manual provision that a “sentence” refers only to “non-suspended” time, then "the State must make absolutely clear, on the record, that it is doing so, and the defendant must be fully advised as such.” Judge Harrell's dissent would, it appears, deviate from that guidance in Solorzano.
Majority op. at 583 n. 5, 7 A.3d at 565 n. 5 (internal citation omitted).
Beyond noting that what the Majority opinion sees as unanimous and guidance in this most obiter of dicta in the afterthought footnote in Solorzano, I observe that Cuffley agreed personally and explicitly on the record to a sentence "within the guidelines.” The presence and assistance of competent counsel supports the conclusion that Cuffley did so purposefully. Taken together with the fact that he also agreed to a separate, distinct, and additional "conditions of probation,” it is a fair, even unavoidable, determination that Cuffley knew the court could impose the sentence it did.

. Therefore, "all applicable or relevant laws must be read into the agreement of the parties just as if expressly provided by them----” Wright v. Commercial & Sav. Bank, 297 Md. 148, 153, 464 A.2d 1080, 1083 (1983). This principles "embraces ... those provisions which affect the validity, construction, discharge and enforcement of the contract.” Dennis v. Mayor and City Council of Rockville, 286 Md. 184, 189-90, 406 A.2d 284, 287 (1979).

. Even if one considered that Petitioner misinterpreted the plea agreement terms and is .not just asserting a case of buyer’s remorse here, that would be of no moment because the terms are clear. We care only about what a reasonable lay person would have thought. If this Petitioner thought the agreement said something else, then he is simply mistaken, and a unilateral mistake "will not furnish a basis for relief”; "the party will be held to the objective meaning of the contract terms.” Creamer v. Helferstay, 294 Md. 107, 128, 448 A.2d 332, 342 (1982).

. These were the terms of the plea agreement. The agreement was not for, as the Majority opinion claims, a "total sentence” (including non-suspended and suspended time). There was no mention of Petitioner’s "total sentence” or "total exposure.” Rather, the agreement was for an actual sentence to be followed by a probationary period. Whether Petitioner would spend that period at home (as a probationer) or in prison (as a prisoner serving a suspended sentence) was a separate matter, determined solely by Petitioner’s own, post-sentencing, choices.