Court Opinion

ID: 9704005
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:17:33.372894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:54.254230
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The defendant here contends that where a plea bargain agreement contemplates the approval or granting of sentence concessions by the trial court, and the court, after acceptance of the guilty plea, later decides to reject the sentence concessions contemplated by the plea bargain, the defendant should be given an opportunity to withdraw or affirm the guilty plea. The defendant contends also that the practice in the District Court varies in this regard. Some District Judges automatically grant a right to withdraw under such circumstances while others, as in the instant case, refuse it. The lack of uniformity results in an arbitrary and uneven administration of criminal justice. A defendant who pleads guilty before one judge may be permitted to withdraw his plea before sentence, while the same defendant before another judge under the same circumstances might be sentenced without an opportunity to withdraw a plea.
The majority opinion in responding to the defendant’s contention first reaffirms the adoption by this court of *566the ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty. Section 2.1(b) of those standards provides: “In the absence of a showing that withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, a defendant may not withdraw his plea of guilty or nolo contendere as a matter of right once the plea has been accepted by the court. Before sentence, the court in its discretion may allow the defendant to withdraw his plea for any fair and just reason unless the prosecution has been substantially prejudiced by reliance upon the defendant’s plea.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The majority opinion now holds that it is not proper for a trial judge to permit the withdrawal of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere unless such withdrawal is necessary to correct a manifest injustice, and also holds that a trial judge should not enter into an agreement in .advance that the defendant will he permitted to withdraw his plea if the court does not accept the recommendation on the sentence. The opinion completely ignores the second sentence of section 2.1(b) of the ABA Standards, without any attempt to limit or overrule it, and after having first reaffirmed the complete standards. Neither does the opinion define what will constitute a manifest injustice sufficient to authorize withdrawal of the plea as a matter of right. The present opinion will emphasize and enlarge the disparity of treatment resulting from the differing attitudes of the individual trial judges, rather than provide a uniform and fair rule for the acceptance or rejection of plea bargains contemplating specific sentencing concessions.
There can be no real doubt that the rules permitting a defendant to affirm or withdraw a plea of guilty if the court determines to reject the sentence concessions contemplated by a plea bargain have developed from experience and practice and a desire to provide a more even-handed administration of justice. Such rules are now in effect in a majority of the jurisdictions which recognize plea discussions and plea agreements as an *567appropriate part of the administration of criminal justice. The majority opinion acknowledges that section 4.1(c) of the ABA Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge specifically mandates the granting of a right of withdrawal under circumstances such as those present here. This court, however, discards the rule on the basis that the Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge have not yet been adopted in Nebraska, and are therefore not binding on this court.
It should be pointed out also that the American Law Institute adopted the final draft of the Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure in May 1975. Section 350.6 of that code provides in part: “If at the time of sentencing, the court for any reason determines to impose a sentence more severe than that provided for in a plea agreement between the parties, the court shall inform the defendant of that fact and shall inform the defendant that the court will entertain a motion to withdraw the plea.”
The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure have also been amended, one portion effective August 1, 1975, and the remainder effective December 1, 1975. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended, continues to provide that the court shall not participate in any plea bargain discussions. Rule 11, subsections (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4), now provides:
“(2) If a plea agreement has been reached by the parties, the court shall, on the record, require the disclosure of the agreement in open court or, on a showing of good cause, in camera, at the time the plea is offered. Thereupon the court may accept or reject the agreement, or may defer its decision as to the acceptance or rejection until there has been an opportunity to consider the presentence report.
“(3) If the court accepts the plea agreement, the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in *568the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement.
“(4) If the court rejects the plea agreement, the court shall, on the record, inform the parties of this fact, advise the defendant personally in open court or, on a showing of good cause, in camera, that the court is not bound by the plea agreement, afford the defendant the opportunity to then withdraw his plea, and advise the defendant that if he persists in his guilty plea or plea of nolo contendere the disposition of the case may be less favorable to the defendant than that contemplated by the plea agreement.”
Some courts have adopted rules requiring an opportunity for withdrawal of a guilty plea under the circumstances present here, simply on the strength of having adopted the ABA Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty. See, State v. Wolske, 280 Minn. 465, 160 N. W. 2d 146; State v. Loyd, 291 Minn. 528, 190 N. W. 2d 123. Other courts have relied on Standards Relating to the Function of the Trial Judge. State v. Fisher, 223 N. W. 2d 243 (Iowa, 1974).
It is noteworthy that not one case is cited in support of the majority holding here. It is difficult to understand the reluctance of the court to accept a rule which all federal courts and an overwhelming majority of all state courts already follow. We are cited to no state court which recognizes plea discussions and plea agreements as an appropriate part of the administration of criminal justice which has refused to follow the rule since Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257, 92 S. Ct. 495, 30 L. Ed. 2d 427 (1971). The majority opinion here is a step backward in the continuing search for evenhanded justice.