AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Defendant was indicted on five felony counts on May 28, 2019. A plea agreement was entered into on August 18, 2021, reducing three charges to misdemeanors and leaving two felony charges, to which the Defendant pleaded guilty. The agreement included the Defendant's admission to two prior felonies and a stipulation not to contest these if habitual offender proceedings were initiated, provided the Defendant did not violate any laws or probation/parole conditions. The State agreed not to initiate habitual offender proceedings unless such violations occurred. The Defendant was later arrested on new charges, leading to a revocation of probation and the imposition of an eight-year enhancement for the two prior felonies, applied consecutively (paras 3-4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by imposing four-year habitual offender enhancements for each of two prior felony convictions and running these enhancements consecutively, contrary to the plea agreement. Contended that the plea agreement was ambiguous regarding the enhancements and that any ambiguity should be resolved in the Defendant's favor. Additionally, argued that the district court mistakenly believed it lacked discretion to order the enhancements to run concurrently (paras 2, 5).
• Plaintiff-Appellee: The State's specific arguments are not detailed, but it is noted that the State did not dispute the Defendant's argument regarding the district court's discretion to order enhancements concurrently. The State argued that the Defendant failed to preserve this objection below (paras 9, 12).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in imposing eight years of habitual offender enhancement time in contravention of the plea agreement terms.
• Whether the district court erroneously believed it lacked discretion to order sentence enhancements to run concurrently (paras 2, 9).

Disposition

• The court affirmed in part and remanded in part for resentencing, specifically for the district court to exercise its discretion in determining whether the habitual offender enhancements should be run concurrently or consecutively (para 13).

Reasons

• Per Yohalem, J. (Attrep, C.J., and Bogardus, J., concurring): The court found no ambiguity in the plea agreement regarding habitual offender enhancements, as any potential ambiguity was resolved during the plea colloquy. The Defendant was informed that the four-year enhancements applied to both prior felony convictions and could be run consecutively. However, the court agreed with the Defendant that the district court erred in believing it was required to impose the sentence enhancements consecutively because the underlying sentences were run consecutively. This misunderstanding necessitated a remand for the district court to exercise its discretion regarding whether the enhancements should be concurrent or consecutive. The court declined to review for plain error, as this rule applies only to evidentiary matters and was not relevant to the sentencing issue at hand (paras 6-13).