State v. King, 97-92

Decision Date25 March 1998
Docket NumberNo. 97-92,97-92
Citation576 N.W.2d 369
PartiesSTATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Johnnie C. KING, Appellant.
CourtIowa Supreme Court

Drew H. Kouris, Council Bluffs, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, and Judson L. Frisk, County Attorney, for appellee.

Considered en banc.

PER CURIAM.

Johnnie C. King appeals from judgment and sentence entered, following his guilty plea, to going armed with intent, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.8 (1995). He contends the State violated the plea agreement by failing to remain silent at sentencing, or, alternatively, his counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve error on this issue. He requests his conviction be reversed and the case be remanded to allow him to withdraw his guilty plea. We find the prosecutor violated the plea agreement and error was preserved. We therefore affirm the judgment of conviction, vacate the sentence, and remand for resentencing.

On May 13, 1996, the State charged King with terrorism, in violation of Iowa Code section 708.6, and driving under suspension, in violation of Iowa Code section 321A.32. The charges resulted after King allegedly fired a Chinese assault rifle at individuals in a truck, hitting two of the occupants. The individuals had been chasing King and bumping his vehicle with their truck. King's infant son was in the vehicle at the time.

King filed a notice of his intent to assert a self defense claim; however, a plea agreement was reached prior to trial. At the guilty plea hearing, the parties informed the court King was pleading guilty to an amended charge of going armed with intent, and, in exchange, the State would move to dismiss the driving-under-suspension charge. Defense counsel added, without objection from the prosecutor, that the State also agreed to remain silent at sentencing. The court's docket entry reflects the same.

At the sentencing hearing, the court received a presentence investigation report (PSI) detailing the probation officer's recommendation for an indeterminate five-year prison term. Defense counsel argued against incarceration. Thereafter, the State requested the court follow the PSI recommendation. Defense counsel objected, maintaining the State's comments violated the plea agreement. The prosecutor later commented on the validity of King's self-defense theory. Defense counsel again objected. The court sentenced King to an indeterminate five-year term of imprisonment.

On appeal, King argues the State violated the plea agreement by failing to remain silent at sentencing. King requests this court reverse his conviction and remand the case to allow him to withdraw the guilty plea and proceed to trial.

Our review is for errors at law. See State v. Hinners, 471 N.W.2d 841, 843 (Iowa 1991). This court has recognized that a prosecutor may not withdraw from a plea bargain after a defendant has entered a guilty plea or has detrimentally relied upon the agreement. State v. Edwards, 279 N.W.2d 9, 11 (Iowa 1979). Compliance with plea agreements is mandated by "our time-honored fair play norm and accepted professional standards." State v. Kuchenreuther, 218 N.W.2d 621, 624 (Iowa 1974). Violations or casual withdrawals of these agreements after detrimental reliance by the defendant are intolerable and adversely impact the integrity of the prosecutorial office and the entire judicial system. See Edwards, 279 N.W.2d at 12.

In this case, the State agreed to remain silent at sentencing. It is clear from a review of the record that the prosecutor breached that agreement, and error was preserved by defense counsel's objections. We now consider the appropriate remedy for the State's failure to abide by its promise.

If a prosecutor breaches the plea...

To continue reading

Request your trial
20 cases
  • State v. Peterson
    • United States
    • Kansas Supreme Court
    • February 8, 2013
    ...victim in favorable terms to correct misstatement of fact when court, defense counsel described victim as “drug dealer”); State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369, 370 (Iowa 1998) (State breached plea agreement promise to remain silent at sentencing by requesting court follow PSI recommendation); Burr......
  • State v. Dudley
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • December 5, 2014
    ...a guilty plea or until the defendant has taken action that amounts to a detrimental reliance on the agreement. See State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369, 370 (Iowa 1998) (per curiam).The State communicated to Dudley, prior to withdrawing the plea offer, that the county attorney was making a trip to......
  • State v. Munoz
    • United States
    • Montana Supreme Court
    • May 15, 2001
    ...1225 (choice of remedy is matter for court to decide); accord, Dutton v. State (Alaska Ct.App.1999), 970 P.2d 925, 928; State v. King (Iowa 1998), 576 N.W.2d 369, 371. But see State v. Abbott (Ct.App. 1995), 79 Hawai`i 317, 901 P.2d 1296, 1298 ("considerable weight" should be given by the t......
  • State v. Fannon
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • May 20, 2011
    ...remedied by allowing the defendant to withdraw the guilty plea or by remanding for resentencing before a new judge. Id.; State v. King, 576 N.W.2d 369, 371 (Iowa 1998); see generally George L. Blum, Choice of Remedies Where State Prosecutor Has Breached Plea Bargain, 9 A.L.R.6th 541 (2005) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT