Riley v. Warden, Nevada State Prison, 7049
Decision Date | 20 November 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 7049,7049 |
Citation | 515 P.2d 1269,89 Nev. 510 |
Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Parties | Billy Ray RILEY, Appellant, v. WARDEN, NEVADA STATE PRISON, Respondent. |
Pursuant to a 'plea bargain' whereby a prosecutor promised to drop four other charges, and not to make any recommendation concerning sentencing, appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of robbery. At the sentencing hearing, a different prosecutor violated the bargain, stating:
'Your honor, recognizing it is your prerogative to sentence this defendant, the District Attorney would like to go on record that it concurs in the Parole and Probation Report and particularly in line with Mr. Woofter's statement that he felt a prison sentence should be dealt out to those who engage in armed robberies.'
The sentencing judge said he would not consider these remarks and, on stipulation of the prosecutor and appellant's court-appointed counsel, he ordered them 'stricken.' 1 However, he did not ascertain whether appellant understood and accepted this attempt to correct the prosecutor's breach. Shortly after the court imposed sentence, appellant filed a post-conviction petition for habeas relief. The court denied that petition; this appeal follows.
Unless his counsel effectively waived appellant's rights, this case is directly controlled by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), wherein one prosecutor made a recommendation concerning sentencing after another prosecutor had promised none would be made. In such cases, the Court declared, the sentence must be vacated and the state court must decide whether merely to enforce the plea bargain by allowing a new sentencing hearing, or whether to afford the defendant an opportunity for trial on the original charges. (Here, appellant asks only the former, less drastic relief.) As Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated:
The State has attempted to justify the prosecutor's statement by suggesting it was not a 'recommendation,' but merely declared 'the policy of the Clark County District Attorney concerning the crime of armed robbery.' Although the district court correctly rejected that rationalization, it denied appellant relief, believing it had cured the breach before sentencing appellant. 2
It is true that the sentencing judge declared he would not be affected by the prosecutor's statement. However, we can accord such a statement no more effect than the U.S. Supreme Court did in Santobello. 3 To do so would be futile, cf. Davis v. Warden, 88 Nev. 443, 498 P.2d 1346 (1972), and would merely force the public defender to waste public funds redressing appellant's grievance in the federal court system. It is also true that appellant's court-appointed counsel 'stipulated' to the sentencing judge's attempt to correct the prosecutor's breach. However, we believe before proceeding the sentencing judge was obliged to ascertain that appellant himself voluntarily and understandingly consented to accept something less than the relief to which he was entitled under Santobello. This conclusion seems mandated by the U.S. Supreme Court's holding in Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969), which we followed first in Higby v. Sheriff, 86 Nev. 774, 476 P.2d 959 (1970).
In Boykin, the Court declared that a state court may not accept a guilty plea without canvassing the matter with the accused to assure that his plea is voluntarily and understandingly entered. 395 U.S. at 243--244, 89 S.Ct. 1709. The Court stated:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sturrock v. State
...plea bargain. See Schoultz v. Hocker, 469 F.2d 681 (9th Cir. 1972); Fine v. Warden, 90 Nev. 166, 521 P.2d 374 (1974); Riley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 510, 515 P.2d 1269 (1973). The court was thus obligated to inform appellant of his right to a preliminary examination before permitting him to enter......
-
Staley v. State
...with the original sentencing prior to what we considered to be the prosecutor's breach of the plea agreement. See also Riley v. Warden, 89 Nev. 510, 515 P.2d 1269 (1973). I am unable to ascertain by what principles of criminal or contract law the State is meticulously bound by the terms of ......
-
Echeverria v. State
...102 Nev. 241, 243, 720 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1986)); see also Kluttz v. Warden, 99 Nev. 681, 684, 669 P.2d 244, 246 (1983); Riley v. Warden. 89 Nev. 510, 513-14, 515 P.2d 1269. 1271 8. See, e.g., Citti, 107 Nev. at 94, 807 P.2d at 727; Wolf v. State, 106 Nev. 426, 428, 794 P.2d 721, 723 (1990); ......
-
Castriotta v. State
... ... Paul David CASTRIOTTA, Appellant, ... STATE of Nevada, Respondent ... No. 26057 ... Supreme Court of Nevada ... ...