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

• The Defendant entered a no contest plea to charges of false imprisonment, robbery, and tampering with evidence. The plea agreement noted a basic sentence of seven and one-half years for the three offenses and contained an admission of identity regarding a prior felony conviction. The agreement specified that the basic sentence could be enhanced for any undisclosed prior felony convictions. Despite this, the district court enhanced the Defendant's sentence based on a disclosed prior felony conviction, resulting in a total sentence of ten and a half years (para 4).

Procedural History

• [Not applicable or not found]

Parties' Submissions

• Defendant-Appellant: Argued that the district court should have allowed withdrawal of the plea because the plea agreement did not permit sentence enhancement based on a disclosed prior felony conviction (para 2).
• Plaintiff-Appellee (State): Opposed the Defendant's motion, relying on language in the plea agreement's "Admission of Identity" section, which stated that there were no substantial and compelling reasons for suspending or deferring the enhancement of the Robbery count (para 6).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court erred in denying the Defendant's motion to withdraw his no contest plea based on the belief that the plea agreement did not allow for sentence enhancement with a disclosed prior felony conviction (para 2).

Disposition

• The Court of Appeals reversed the district court's denial of the Defendant's motion to withdraw his plea and remanded with instructions to allow the Defendant to withdraw his plea (para 7).

Reasons

• The Court, consisting of Judges Timothy L. Garcia, James J. Wechsler, and Henry M. Bohnhoff, unanimously found that plea agreements should be construed as a defendant would reasonably understand them. The Court determined that the plea agreement's terms, which stated the Defendant's sentence could be enhanced for any undisclosed prior felonies, led to a reasonable belief that the disclosed prior felony would not lead to sentence enhancement. The State's reliance on the "Admission of Identity" section did not override the clear language regarding sentencing enhancements for undisclosed felonies. The Court also noted that the enhancement language cited by the State referred only to the Robbery charge and not to the other felonies, yet the district court enhanced all three felonies. Due to these reasons, the Court reversed the district court's decision and remanded for the Defendant to withdraw his plea (paras 5-7).