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 entered into a plea agreement and was subsequently sentenced. The case concerns issues arising from the plea agreement and the process of re-sentencing, including the Defendant's opportunity for allocution and the prosecutor's arguments against a lesser sentence.
Procedural History
- District Court, May 5, 2009: The Defendant was sentenced following a plea agreement. The case was later remanded to allow the Defendant an opportunity for allocution.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Defendant): Argued that the plea agreement was improper and reiterated prior arguments concerning the voluntariness of the plea. Additionally, the Defendant contended that the prosecutor's arguments against a lesser sentence during re-sentencing prejudiced the outcome.
- Appellee (State): Asserted that the issues concerning the plea agreement were resolved in a prior opinion and were the law of the case. The State also argued that the Defendant was not prejudiced by the prosecutor's arguments, as the same sentence was imposed after allocution.
Legal Issues
- Whether the voluntariness of the plea agreement could be revisited on appeal.
- Whether the Defendant waived substantive challenges to the plea agreement by entering into a non-conditional plea.
- Whether the prosecutor's arguments against a lesser sentence during re-sentencing prejudiced the Defendant.
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment and sentence.
Reasons
Per Bustamante J. (Fry C.J. and Wechsler J. concurring):
The Court held that the voluntariness of the plea agreement could not be revisited because it was resolved in a prior opinion, which constituted the law of the case. Substantive challenges to the plea agreement were deemed waived because the Defendant entered into a non-conditional plea agreement. Regarding the re-sentencing process, the Court found that the prosecutor's arguments against a lesser sentence did not prejudice the Defendant, as the same sentence was imposed after the Defendant was given an opportunity for allocution. The Defendant failed to demonstrate any errors in fact or law, and the Court was not persuaded by the Defendant's arguments.