State v. Yates, 1034--III
| Decision Date | 28 February 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 1034--III,1034--III |
| Citation | 13 Wn.App. 116,533 P.2d 846 |
| Parties | STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Joe YATES, Appellant. |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
Michael R. Pickett of Butler & Pickett, Richland, for appellant.
C. J. Rabideau, Pros. Atty., Pasco, for respondent.
Defendant appeals from a judgment and sentence based on a plea of guilty to a charge of forgery in the first degree.
In the spring of 1971, defendant was arrested and charged with the crime of first-degree forgery. Upon pleading not guilty, he was released on his own recognizance. About 3 days before his trial, he fled the state. Two years later he was rearrested in the state of Montana and extradited to Washington. Subsequently, he changed his plea to guilty with the understanding that the prosecutor, at the time of sentencing, would recommend a deferred sentence. When the change of plea was granted, the prosecutor recommended to the court that defendant be released so that he could have a medical evaluation at the Veteran's Hospital in Walla Walla to accompany the presentence investigation. The court released the defendant and, once again, he fled the state. He was again arrested in Nebraska 5 months later and extradited to Washington.
The defendant was sentenced to a state penal institution upon the recommendation of the prosecutor, and based upon a supplemental presentence investigation report. At no time from the defendant's third arrest until his sentencing did he move the court for leave to change his plea of guilty.
The sole issue presented is whether the trial court erred in sentencing the defendant upon his plea of guilty when the prosecutor failed to recommend a deferred sentence. We answer in the negative.
The record is clear that the defendant was not misled so as to believe he would receive the prosecutor's recommendation for a deferred sentence, regardless of his promise to return for sentencing after his medical examination. The understanding between the defendant and the prosecutor was breached by the defendant when he did not return for sentencing. thus, the prosecutor was no longer required to recommend a deferred sentence for the defendant. Darnell v. Timpani, 68 Wash.2d 666, 414 P.2d 782 (1966); State v. Harris, 57 Wash.2d 383, 357 P.2d 719 (1960); State v. Jessing, 44 Wash.2d 458, 268 P.2d 639 (1954). For this reason the present case is distinguishable from Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnston, s. 2046--I
...plea, would have justified the prosecuting attorney in retreating from his promised recommendation in any event. State v. Yates, 13 Wash.App. 116, 533 P.2d 846 (1975). As often noted by both this court and our State Supreme Court, CrR 4.2 was modeled after Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure......
-
State v. Penado, No. 21614-4-III (Wash. App. 4/29/2004)
...v. Morley, 35 Wn. App. 45, 47-48, 665 P.2d 419 (1983); State v. Hall, 32 Wn. App. 108, 110, 645 P.2d 1143 (1982); State v. Yates, 13 Wn. App. 116, 117-18, 533 P.2d 846 (1975). Accordingly, the State's request that the furlough order reflect the consequences of Ms. Penado's failure to appear......
-
State v. Giebler
...the State in retreating from the promised recommendation. State v. Johnston, 17 Wash.App. 486, 564 P.2d 1159 (1977); State v. Yates, 13 Wash.App. 116, 533 P.2d 846 (1975). Although an agreement between the parties "cannot be turned aside simply because of the exigencies of the moment(,)" St......
-
A.R.E.G., In Interest of
...his promise because of the change of circumstances." Pascall, 49 Ohio App.2d 18, 358 N.E.2d at 1369. Also, in Washington v. Yates (1975), 13 Wash.App. 116, 533 P.2d 846, the defendant was convicted of forgery and appealed based on prosecutorial breach of the plea bargain. The State agreed t......