In many Washington criminal cases, a plea agreement may be an appropriate resolution. A plea agreement is a contract, and in some circumstances, that contract may be breached. When the state agrees to a sentencing recommendation, it does not have to be enthusiastic in making that recommendation to the court, but it may breach the agreement if it undermines the terms of the agreement. The state may undercut the plea agreement by providing the sentencing court with unsolicited information. An appeals court considers the effect the state’s actions had and not the state’s intent. A defendant recently challenged his sentence, arguing the state had breached the plea agreement.
According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant drove the wrong way on an on-ramp and hit another vehicle. Two people in the other car died and a third received treatment at the hospital. The passenger in the defendant’s vehicle was also injured. The defendant’s blood alcohol concentration was 0.14 within two hours after the wreck.
The state ultimately charged the defendant with two counts of vehicular homicide. The state had charged the defendant with vehicular assault of his passenger, but later dropped that charge. The defendant agreed to plead guilty on both counts and stipulated his offender score was 2. The state agreed to make a sentence recommendation of 95 months concurrent confinement, which was the low end of the sentencing range.
In the colloquy, the court informed the defendant that the sentencing judge did not have to follow the state’s sentencing recommendations. The court accepted the guilty pleas.
Sentencing
At sentencing, the court asked the state why the vehicular assault count for the defendant’s passenger was not included in the plea agreement. The state explained it had trouble reaching the passenger and did not think it had contact with her when the plea deal was made. She contacted the state after the plea. The prosecutor said the state “would have done things differently” if it had not lost contact. The court then asked how the vehicular assault charge would have affected the sentence. The state advised that it would have raised the defendant’s offender score to 4, which would add another 15-16 months to the sentence.
The state told the court it had considered the limitations placed on the state by the legislature. The state also said that the sentencing range was low because the defendant had not intended to kill the victims.
The court had received letters from the family members of the victims asking for the maximum sentence. The court asked the state if there were any aggravating factors, but the state said there were not.
Friends and family of the victims spoke and provided a video. The defendant’s passenger also spoke at the hearing about the effects of her injuries. The defendant did not object.
The court stated it had considered the statements and letters from the victim’s friends and family and the statement by the defendant’s passenger. The court also stated that it considered what happened to the passenger, the impact on her, and the state’s explanation that if the vehicular assault count had been included, it would have increased the sentence by 15 or 16 months.
The court then imposed a sentence of 125 months confinement, which was the high end of the sentencing range.
The Appeal
The defendant appealed, arguing the state breached the plea agreement and made prejudicial statements at the sentencing that undermined its recommendation.
The defendant argued the state breached the plea agreement by recommending “the low end of the sentencing range” instead of stating “95 months.” The appeals court noted, however, that the defendant’s attorney also referred to “the low end. . .” Additionally, the court stated that “[both parties ha[d] asked for a sentence of 95 months.” The appeals court concluded the state’s language did not affect the court’s understanding of the recommendation and therefore did not constitute a breach.
The defendant also argued the state’s description of the collision constituted a breach. The state told the court the collision was “avoidable” and “huge.” The state also said the other vehicle was “very small,” while the defendant’s vehicle was “very large.” The state informed the court that a dog in the other vehicle was killed. The defendant also argued the state implied he was more culpable because “[the collision] was completely avoidable.”
The appeals court distinguished the actions of the state in this case from the actions of the state in the cases cited by the defendant. In the cited cases, the state had referred to aggravating factors or facts. The appeals court concluded the challenged statements in this case did not reference “potentially aggravating factors.” When asked if there were any aggravating factors, the state said there were none. The appeals court concluded these statements did not constitute a breach of the agreement.
The defendant also challenged the answers the state provided to the court’s questions, arguing the state provided unsolicited information that undercut its recommendation.
The appeals court determined, however, that the statements answered the court’s questions and were therefore not unsolicited. The state described the injuries of the passenger in the other vehicle who was not killed and the death of her dog when the court asked what happened to hear. The state told the court about temporarily losing contact with the defendant’s passenger when the court asked why the vehicular assault charge had been dropped. The state had also stated that the defendant did not intend to kill the victims and that he had taken responsibility by pleading guilty to the two counts of vehicular homicide. The state mentioned the defendant’s prior theft conviction in response to the court’s multiple questions about aggravating circumstances, but pointed out it had washed and did not change his offender score.
The appeals court determined that the challenged comments did not show an intent to undermine the plea agreement because they were in response to questions by the court. The state must answer the court’s questions with candor and may not withhold relevant information.
The appeals court held there was no breach of the plea agreement and therefore no violation of the defendant’s rights to due process. The appeals court affirmed the defendant’s sentence.
Seek Legal Advice
If you are facing criminal charges, a skilled Washington criminal defense attorney can advise you regarding any potential plea agreements. Set up a consultation with Blair & Kim, PLLC, by calling (206) 622-6562.