AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Eugenio Roybal, the Defendant, entered a guilty plea to two counts of armed robbery and admitted to one prior felony conviction for habitual offender purposes. The plea agreement was understood by the Defendant to entail a sentence of no more than ten years, including a one-year enhancement for the prior felony. However, a different prosecutor later filed a supplemental habitual offender information, adding a 2007 felony conviction to the Defendant's record, which changed the enhancement from one year to four years, resulting in a total sentence of thirteen years.

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant: Argued that the sentence imposed did not conform to the plea agreement, which he understood to cap his sentence at ten years, including a one-year enhancement for a prior felony.
• State: Maintained that the sentence was in accordance with the plea agreement, arguing that the agreement did not preclude the State from seeking additional habitual offender enhancements.

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in sentencing the Defendant to more than ten years, including a four-year enhancement, contrary to the plea agreement's terms as understood by the Defendant.

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals agreed with the Defendant, reversing the district court's decision and remanding for proceedings consistent with the plea agreement as understood by the Defendant.

Reasons

• RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Chief Judge, with TIMOTHY L. GARCIA and J. MILES HANISEE, Judges concurring, found that the Defendant was entitled to have the plea agreement enforced as he reasonably understood it at the time of entering the plea. The Court determined that the plea agreement, as explained during the plea hearing and understood by the Defendant, contemplated a sentence of no more than ten years, including a one-year enhancement for a prior felony. The addition of a second prior felony conviction after the plea led to a sentence exceeding what was reasonably understood by the Defendant. The Court concluded that specific performance of the plea agreement was warranted, directing the district court to enter a judgment and sentence consistent with the Defendant's understanding of the plea agreement (paras 1-18).