Van Buskirk v. State
| Decision Date | 20 June 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. 16123,16123 |
| Citation | 720 P.2d 1215,102 Nev. 241 |
| Parties | Gene P. VAN BUSKIRK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Nevada, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Appellant Gene P. Van Buskirk appeals from a judgment of conviction of one count of grand larceny upon a plea of guilty entered pursuant to a plea bargain. Van Buskirk's appeal raises the issue of whether the plea bargain was violated and, if so, what is the proper remedy.
The State charged Van Buskirk with one count of grand larceny for stealing an attache case from a Las Vegas department store. In return for a negotiated plea of guilty to that charge, the State agreed to dismiss two felony theft charges pending against Van Buskirk, withdraw a habitual criminal allegation, and send Van Buskirk to Lakes Crossing Center prior to sentencing for evaluation and treatment for alcoholism. When the district court canvassed Van Buskirk regarding his plea, it told him that the sentence he received would depend upon the results of his evaluation and treatment.
The district court ordered Van Buskirk to be transported to Lakes Crossing Center. The district court order, however, did not instruct the director of Lakes Crossing Center to evaluate and treat Van Buskirk for alcoholism. Instead, the order instructed the director to "conduct an evaluation of [Van Buskirk] to determine whether or not on the date of the alleged crime ... [he] knew the difference between right and wrong, or the nature, quality and consequences of his physical actions." While at Lakes Crossing Center, Van Buskirk was evaluated for competency to stand trial.
Lakes Crossing Center, in fact, had no facility for evaluation and treatment for alcoholism. When Van Buskirk's counsel notified the district court of that fact, the district court continued Van Buskirk's sentencing date to enable Van Buskirk to be placed in a facility for evaluation and treatment for alcoholism. Before such a facility could be located, however, the district court, after denying Van Buskirk's motion to withdraw his guilty plea, sentenced Van Buskirk to prison for eight years.
Van Buskirk argues that the district court violated the plea bargain by sentencing him before he was evaluated and treated for alcoholism. We agree and conclude that Van Buskirk is entitled to enforcement of the plea bargain.
Plea bargaining has become an essential component of the administration of justice in America. Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63, 97 S.Ct. 1261, 52 L.Ed.2d 1361 (1976); Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). Due process, however, requires that the bargain be kept when the plea of guilty is entered. Santobello v. New York, supra. Gamble v. State, 95 Nev. 904, 604 P.2d 335 (1979). In determining whether the state has fulfilled its part of a plea bargain, the state is held to "the most meticulous standards of both promise and performance." Kluttz v. Warden, 99 Nev. 681, 683-684, 669 P.2d 244 (1983). The violation of the terms or "the spirit" of the plea bargain requires reversal. Id.
Van Buskirk's plea of guilty was induced, in part, by the State's promise that he would be evaluated and treated for alcoholism and that the sentence he received would depend upon the results of his evaluation and treatment. The district court, after accepting the terms of the plea bargain, violated both the terms and the spirit of the plea bargain by sentencing Van Buskirk to prison before he was evaluated and treated for alcoholism.
We conclude that specific enforcement of the plea bargain is the appropriate remedy. The California Supreme Court stated in People v. Mancheno, 32 Cal.3d 855, 187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211 (1982):
The goal in providing a remedy for breach of the [plea] bargain is to redress the harm caused by the violation without prejudicing either party or curtailing the normal sentencing discretion of the trial judge. The remedy chosen will vary depending on the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sullivan v. Nevins
...669 P.2d 244, 245 (1983). The violation of either the terms or the spirit of the agreement equires reversal. Van Buskirk v. State, 102 Nev. 241, 243, 720 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1986).A plea agreement is construed according to what the defendant reasonably understood when he or she entered the ple......
-
Gonzales v. State
...binding the trial judge to a disposition that he or she considers unsuitable under all the circumstances. Van Buskirk v. State, 102 Nev. 241, 244, 720 P.2d 1215, 1216-17 (1986) (quoting People v. Mancheno, 32 Cal.3d 855, 187 Cal.Rptr. 441, 654 P.2d 211, 215 (1982) ). Here, no "additional in......
-
Gaines v. State
...of a plea agreement mandates reversal. Citti v. State, 107 Nev. 89, 91, 807 P.2d 724, 726 (1991) (quoting Van Buskirk v. State, 102 Nev. 241, 243, 720 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1986)). Although Gaines argues that the State implicitly agreed not to oppose credit for time Gaines served in cases A-C at......
-
Sullivan v. State
...669 P.2d 244, 245 (1983). The violation of either the terms or the spirit of the agreement requires reversal. Van Buskirk v. State, 102 Nev. 241, 243, 720 P.2d 1215, 1216 (1986). A plea agreement is construed according to what the defendant reasonably understood when he or she entered the p......