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 charged with receipt, transportation, or possession of a firearm by a felon and possession of a controlled substance (marijuana). A plea agreement was made where the Defendant would plead no contest to the firearm charge, in return for the State dropping the marijuana charge, not pursuing a repeat offender sentencing enhancement, and not opposing a sentence of supervised probation. However, at the sentencing hearing, despite the State not opposing supervised probation as per the plea agreement, the district court sentenced the Defendant to three years of incarceration and two years of parole, based on the Defendant's criminal history and previous conviction of possession of a firearm by a felon (paras 2, 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court erred by sentencing him to incarceration instead of supervised probation as per the plea agreement. Contended that the plea agreement was ambiguous and that he understood it to guarantee supervised probation instead of incarceration. In the alternative, argued that he should be allowed to withdraw his plea because it was not made knowingly and voluntarily (paras 2, 7-8, 12).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Argued that the court should review the sentencing decision for an abuse of discretion, noting that the sentence imposed was authorized by law. Additionally, emphasized that the plea agreement did not guarantee a specific sentence but rather that the State would not oppose supervised probation (para 3).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred by sentencing the Defendant to incarceration rather than imposing a term of supervised probation as per the plea agreement.
• Whether the plea agreement was ambiguous regarding the guarantee of supervised probation.
• Whether the Defendant should be allowed to withdraw his plea on the grounds that it was not made knowingly and voluntarily.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order sentencing the Defendant to three years of incarceration (para 13).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Zachary A. Ives, Kristina Bogardus, and Megan P. Duffy concurring, held that the plea agreement did not guarantee a specific sentence but rather indicated that the State would not oppose supervised probation. The Court distinguished between a plea agreement that recommends a specific sentence and one that does not oppose a defendant’s requested sentence, noting that the district court is not bound by the latter. The Court found that the district court had informed the Defendant that the sentencing recommendations were not binding, fulfilling its duty to ensure the Defendant's understanding of the plea agreement's terms. Consequently, the Court concluded that the plea was made knowingly and voluntarily and that the district court acted within its discretion in sentencing the Defendant to incarceration (paras 5-12).