From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Blow v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Mar 13, 1973
49 Ala. App. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)

Summary

In Blow, the court stated: `After advising the appellant that he could not take the recommended plea [the judge] should have afforded him an opportunity to withdraw it. Although the judge's prior concurrence may have been conditional, the plea withdrawal was necessary to correct the broken bargain.' 49 Ala. [App.] at 624, 274 So.2d at 652.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. State

Opinion

3 Div. 192.

March 13, 1973.

Appeal from the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, Richard P. Emmet, J.

Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for appellant.

William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen., and James L. Hunt, Tuscumbia, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.


On November 17, 1971, Dan Blow pleaded guilty to a charge of illegal sale of narcotics. This plea was the result of an agreement with the District Attorney wherein the accused was to receive three years and a continuance until February for sentencing. The appellant failed to appear on the February date, and was sentenced to five years on June 12, 1972.

In sentencing the appellant, the judge acknowledged the three year agreement, but because of the appellant's failure to appear, and further violations, the three year recommendation was not accepted.

It is from this judgment the appellant appeals.

A similar question was before the United States Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427, and Chief Justice Burger held that when a prosecutor makes a promise which plays a significant part in the plea decision, the promise must be kept. The case was remanded to the state court to decide whether circumstances required only that there be specific performance or whether defendant should be granted opportunity to withdraw his plea.

It is on the authority of this decision that we base our reversal.

Our respected brother on the trial bench was in error in his actions. After advising the appellant that he could not take the recommended plea he should have afforded him an opportunity to withdraw it. Although the judge's prior concurrence may have been conditional, the plea withdrawal was necessary to correct the broken bargain.

The disposition of criminal cases by negotiated pleas of guilty (plea bargaining) resolves the overwhelming majority of criminal matters in this country every year. Many agree and others disapprove, but the result is inescapable that plea negotiations have been with us a long time and are used universally. This procedure has served the administration of criminal justice well, and any negotiations wherein two trained professionals submit their findings to a learned judge for his concurrence has a forthrightness and fairness deserving of enforcement.

Arthur N. Bishop, "Broken Bargains," Journal of Urban Law, 50: 231-232, November, 1972.

Reversed and remanded.

CATES, P. J., and ALMON, TYSON and HARRIS, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Blow v. State

Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama
Mar 13, 1973
49 Ala. App. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)

In Blow, the court stated: `After advising the appellant that he could not take the recommended plea [the judge] should have afforded him an opportunity to withdraw it. Although the judge's prior concurrence may have been conditional, the plea withdrawal was necessary to correct the broken bargain.' 49 Ala. [App.] at 624, 274 So.2d at 652.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. State

In Blow, the trial judge accepted a guilty plea based upon the district attorney's recommendation that the judge sentence the defendant to three years.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. State

In Blow, upon the defendant's failure to appear and his commission of further violations, the trial judge rejected the agreement, which did not specifically contemplate the defendant's failure to appear or his further violations.

Summary of this case from Nelson v. State

In Blow, the Court of Criminal Appeals relied on the authority of Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 92 S.Ct. 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), which held that when a prosecutor makes a promise which plays a significant part in the plea decision, the promise must be kept.

Summary of this case from State v. Holman

In Blow, the court stated: "After advising the appellant that he could not take the recommended plea [the judge] should have afforded him an opportunity to withdraw it. Although the judge's prior concurrence may have been conditional, the plea withdrawal was necessary to correct the broken bargain."

Summary of this case from State v. Holman

In Blow, the trial judge accepted a guilty plea based upon the district attorney's recommendation that the judge sentence the defendant to three years.

Summary of this case from State v. Holman

In Blow, upon the defendant's failure to appear and his commission of further violations, the trial judge rejected the agreement, which did not specifically contemplate the defendant's failure to appear or his further violations.

Summary of this case from State v. Holman
Case details for

Blow v. State

Case Details

Full title:Dan BLOW, alias v. STATE

Court:Court of Criminal Appeals of Alabama

Date published: Mar 13, 1973

Citations

49 Ala. App. 623 (Ala. Crim. App. 1973)
274 So. 2d 652

Citing Cases

Nelson v. State

It is interesting to note that Brown, decided September 9, 1986, takes no note whatsoever of Holman, which…

Ex Parte Otinger

' See Shepard v. State, 347 So.2d 1017 (Ala.Cr.App. 1977) (recognizing rule); Waldrop v. State, 54 Ala. App.…