Just wondering how much authority judges normally have to reject a sentencing agreement worked out by prosecution and defence? Are judges completely free to reject them? Completely free in theory, but in practice paying some deference to them, because of the role plea agreements play in the criminal system? Likely to follow them except in unusual cases?
Obviously, I appreciate that there’s no single answer, given the diversity of state and federal judicial systems, but just wondered if there’s a consensus approach to this issue?
I am not a lawyer, nor a particularly good amateur, but I think that “Completely free in theory, but in practice paying some deference to them, because of the role plea agreements play in the criminal system” is how it works. I’m pretty sure the judge is also looking out for undue collusion between prosecutor and defendant and so on as well.
IANA criminal lawyer, but my understanding is that because the judge is the only one with sentencing authority, the plea agreement sentencing recommendation cannot be binding. The prosecutor can influence the process to some extent by deciding which offenses to charge, since that may result in a different sentencing range.
Typically, the defendant will be permitted to withdraw his or her guilty plea if the proposed sentence is rejected.
On the whole, this is correct in the states I have practiced in. In Arizona state courts, plea agreements generally include proscribed sentences (ranging from no agreements, probation, an open-ended amount of prison, a set range of prison, or a specific number of years in prison). This is a bit stronger than a mere recommendation, but if the judge does not follow the proscribed sentence per the plea, then either party has the right to withdraw and have the original charges reinstated. It’s not unheard of for certain judges to reject pleas if they feel that either the charge being pled to or the sentence under the plea is too harsh or too lenient. But the parties can simply find another judge that will accept the plea agreement and do the sentencing.
In military courts-martial, the accused gets a double advantage. The plea offer contains a sentence agreed upon by both parties, but the military judge does not get to see this portion of the plea until after he/she already determines their own sentence independently. If the sentence the judge determines independently is lower than the one the parties agreed upon, the accused gets the lower sentence. If the sentence the judge determines is higher than the one the parties agreed upon, the accused gets the benefit of the bargain and is sentenced according to the plea agreement.
This is true in Ohio, too. In my six years as a prosecutor, though, I only had one judge refuse to approve a plea agreement, much to the surprise of the defendant, his lawyer and me. The guy and his lawyer then had a hurried, whispered conversation and agreed to plead to what we’d discussed, but to leave sentencing up to the judge. She didn’t particularly hammer him, IIRC.
This is also true of the Federal courts, where a federal judge rejected the plea agreement between Henry Samueli and the US Attorney, in part because the agreement stank of Samueli buying his freedom for a $12 million fine. Incidentally, the judge’s decision to toss the plea was recently upheld by the 9th Circuit after Samueli’s appeal.
In Virginia, judges may accept or reject, but are expressly forbidden from participating in the negotiation of a plea agreement. Sometimes when a judge is inclined to reject a plea agreement, they will toe this line by hinting in a very roundabout way as to what they are hung up on. Sometimes they will order a pre-sentence report (normally done here prior to sentencing when there is no plea agreement) and use the information gained there to help decide whether to accept or reject the plea agreement. If they reject the plea agreement the accused has the option of either withdrawing their plea or letting the judge sentence them however. If they withdraw their plea, the case is set for trial before a judge other than the one who rejected their plea.
As someone mentioned upthread, you can always try your luck before a different judge. Certain ones are much more prone to rejecting plea agreements than others.
In the courts I work in plea agreements get rejected all the time. Usually it’s because they are illegal. After the plea is entered the judge orders the probation department to do a presentence investigation. This involves a criminal background check, which often reveals past crimes that the prosecutor was not aware of when they made the agreement. When those past crimes are considered, the sentence called for in the plea agreement does not meet statutory requirements, so the agreement has to be rejected. Back when I was doing nothing but presentence investigations for six courts this happened at least once a week.
The original question in this thread was nearly the exact question I searched for and found this thread.
A friend of mine was sentenced yesterday to 10-20 years in prison when his plea agreement suggested payment of restitution and probation. He had nothing on his record other than a few speeding tickets.
We were all shocked when the judge made his ruling. He seems to have an agenda of his own in this matter, and just happens to be up for reelection this fall.
I’d appreciate any insight you legal eagles out there could provide.
According to the article, your friend stole $135,000. It doesn’t really matter how clean he was before hand - that’s some serious criminal activity. And the judge warned him ahead of time that he might give him some prison time anyway.
Also, I’d guess the fact that the current CFO of the organization he stole from said he’d rather the guy go to prison factored into this:
"“If restitution stands in the way of him going to prison, we ask that he serve a prison term first, as this warrants prison time,” Thieszen continued. “We’re willing to wait for the restitution. Only prison will tell the public that if you steal from your employer, it’s wrong. It affected thousands of people.”
I don’t know anyone involved in this, but it sounds a lot more like the prosecutor was offering some kind of sweetheart deal to your friend. Stealing that kind of money (from a farmers cooperative!) should always result in serious jail time.
Your response assumes his guilt. That’s my problem with this. His guilt was never proven, and he told me first hand that these things were given to him over the years in return for his department’s continued successes. On paper, the stuff was owned by the Coop, and he knew this all along, which is why he returned it after being fired.
According to the first article, it was a no contest plea. We don’t have such a plea option here, so I’m not exactly clear on it, but obviously he did not contest the allegations.
It leaves one to wonder why he did not contest the allegations. It’s quite easy to spout off about how you’re innocent to friends when you’re not under oath.
No contest pleas are made when plea agreements have been offered by the prosecution, accepted by the defense, and taken to the judge for what’s basically approval. The subject of this thread is asking the exact same question - " How much authority does a judge in the US have to reject a sentencing agreement?"
I’ve been looking all over the net and can’t find any cases where a judge so blatantly ignored a plea agreement, or sentencing agreement. This judge went from a probationary agreement (plus $135k restitution) to a maximum sentence for the crime, on a case that had no trial, no jury, and no discussion in front of the judge for which he would have reason to make such a drastic change.
Not an expert in the law of the Jurisdiction in question, but exessive sentances are usually appealable. In this instance from below what I can see the Judge did seem to take into account irrelevant issues in deciding the sentence
In Ohio, a no contest plea means that you do not admit your guilt, but you do not contest the truth of the facts asserted in the criminal complaint or indictment. This can be important because, if you’re sued for damages resulting from your alleged act(s), a guilty plea can be introduced into evidence against you, but a no contest plea cannot. Some people also just psychologically find it easier to say “No contest” than “Guilty,” which in some cases can be surprisingly important.
In most states now, victim-impact statements are admissible at time of sentencing.
EH, would you surprised if a plea bargain came in front of you where the defendant agreed to pay restitution to the victim(s), over time, in exchange for no jail time, and the victim(s) themselves had not been consulted at all? That’s what looks like happened here - witness the testimony from the current CFO of the organization.