Court Opinion

ID: 9580014
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:00:52.656578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:35:57.818001
License: Public Domain

DANIEL F. FOLEY, Judge
(concurring specially).
I write separately to remind trial judges that they are not to participate in plea negotiations. I concur in the judgment because the record is not sufficiently clear regarding the judge’s participation in the negotiations involved in this case.
Here, appellant agreed to a bench trial on stipulated facts. The court noted that appellant was thereby
guaranteed no greater a sentence, * * ⅜ no more jail time, the most he could do is up to one year in the Workhouse, a probationary sentence. * * * Should he be found guilty, he would have stayed time of no more than 144 months.
The Minnesota Supreme Court has carefully delineated the role of a judge in plea negotiations:
Although the court should neither usurp the responsibility of counsel nor participate in the plea bargaining negotiation itself, its proper role of discreet inquiry into the propriety of the settlement submitted for judicial acceptance cannot seriously be doubted.
State v. Johnson, 279 Minn. 209, 216, 156 N.W.2d 218, 223 (1968). The court explained that a trial judge has a delicate role:
“Inevitably the judge plays a part in the negotiated guilty plea. His role is a delicate one, for it is important that he carefully examine the agreed disposition, and it is equally important that he not undermine his judicial role by becoming excessively involved in the negotiations themselves.”
Id. at 216 n. 11, 156 N.W.2d at 223 n. 11 (quoting President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, p. 136). Accordingly, a judge should not promise a particular sentence in advance. State v. Moe, 479 N.W.2d 427, 429 (Minn.App.1992), pet. for rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 10, 1992).
Trial judges should always be conscious of their “delicate” role regarding plea negotiations.