Santobello v. New York

In Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971), the prosecutor had agreed not to make a recommendation as to the sentence if the appellant entered a plea of guilty to a lesser offense, but a prosecutor who subsequently came into the case recommended the maximum sentence. The United States Supreme Court remanded for the state court to determine whether the appropriate remedy was specific performance of the agreement or to allow appellant to withdraw his plea of guilty The United States Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, emphasized the importance that plea agreements have in judicial proceedings stating: This phase of the process of criminal justice, and the adjudicative element inherent in accepting a plea of guilty, must be attended by safeguards to insure the defendant what is reasonably due in the circumstances. Those circumstances will vary, but a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled. The Supreme Court in Santobello also noted other policy reasons for honoring agreements between the State and the defendant stating: Disposition of charges after plea discussions is not only an essential part of the process but a highly desirable part for many reasons. It leads to prompt and largely final disposition of most criminal cases; it avoids much of the corrosive impact of enforced idleness during pretrial confinement for those who are denied release pending trial; it protects the public from those accused persons who are prone to continue criminal conduct even while on pretrial release; and by shortening the time between charge and disposition, it enhances whatever may be the rehabilitative prospects of the guilty when they are ultimately imprisoned. The United States Supreme Court noted that plea bargains "presuppose fairness in securing agreement between an accused and a prosecutor." ( Id. at p. 261.) Accordingly, the court permitted the withdrawal of a guilty plea because a second prosecutor refused to honor the first prosecutor's promise to make no sentencing recommendation. ( Id. at p. 259.) In so holding, the court stated that "when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." ( Id. at p. 262.) The United States Supreme Court vacated the defendant's conviction where prosecutors had violated the terms of the defendant's plea agreement. Under the terms of the agreement, the defendant agreed to plead guilty in New York state court to a certain offense in exchange for the prosecutor's agreeing to make no sentencing recommendation to the trial court. Santobello, 404 U.S. at 258, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 431. The defendant pled guilty to the offense as agreed. However, a different prosecutor unfamiliar with the plea agreement appeared at the defendant's sentencing hearing and recommended that the trial court impose the maximum sentence. Id. at 258-59, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 431. The trial court then imposed the maximum sentence over the defendant's objection. Id. at 259-60, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 431-32. The prosecutor agreed to make no sentence recommendation under the plea agreement but later recommended a maximum sentence. The sentencing court overruled the defense objection and sentenced the defendant to the maximum term, saying it did not rely upon the recommendation in doing so. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the State's promises must be fulfilled and remanded to state court, giving it the option of imposing specific performance of the agreement before a different judge or allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea. 404 U.S. at 262-63. The Supreme Court began its opinion by lamenting "another example of an unfortunate lapse in orderly prosecutorial procedures." Id. at 260, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 432. The Court held that requirements of fairness and due process apply to the negotiation and tender of a plea bargain. Id. at 261-62, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 432-33. While the Court noted that the process due a defendant would vary in different circumstances, it was nonetheless clear that "a constant factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled." Id. at 262, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 433. The State argued that its breach of the plea agreement was inadvertent, but the Court was not persuaded. According to the Court, "the staff lawyers in a prosecutor's office have the burden of 'letting the left hand know what the right hand is doing' or has done. That the breach of agreement was inadvertent does not lessen its impact." Id. Because the State failed to fulfill its promise, the Court vacated the judgment and remanded the case for appropriate relief. Id. at 262-63, 30 L. Ed. 2d at 433. In Santobello, it was clear that the prosecutors violated the explicit terms of the defendant's plea agreement.