NCJ Number
50806
Journal
FEDERAL BAR JOURNAL Volume: 37 Issue: 1 Dated: (WINTER 1978) Pages: 76-79
Date Published
1978
Length
4 pages
Annotation
THE EFFECT OF PLEA BARGAINING ON PAROLE DECISIONMAKING IS DISCUSSED; ISSUES RAISED BY PAROLE-DECISION PLEA BARGAINING ARE CONSIDERED ANALOGOUS TO PLEA-BARGAINING ISSUES IN SENTENCING.
Abstract
PLEA BARGAINING ISSUES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PAROLE DECISION FALL INTO TWO GENERAL CATEGORIES: (1) THE ENFORCEMENT OF A SPECIFIC PAROLE-RELATED PROMISE MADE BY A PROSECUTOR IN EXCHANGE FOR A GUILTY PLEA, AND (2) THE CONSIDERATION BY THE PAROLE AUTHORITY OF CRIMINAL CHARGES WHICH HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POSSIBLE TYPES OF PROMISES WHICH MIGHT BE GIVEN IN EXCHANGE FOR A GUILTY PLEA, OF WHICH A RECOMMENDATION FOR EARLY PAROLE IS BUT ONE. BECAUSE SUCH PROMISES ARE SIMILAR TO PROMISES OF SENTENCE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEY ARE LOGICALLY ENFORCEABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SANTOBELLO VS. NEW YORK (1971), WHICH HELD THAT VIOLATING A PLEA BARGAIN PROMISE NOT TO MAKE A SENTENCING RECOMMENDATION WARRANTS EITHER RESENTENCING WITHOUT A PROSECUTION RECOMMENDATION OR AN OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA. CASE LAW INDICATES THAT ULTRA VIRES BARGAINS HAVE TAKEN THE FORM OF PROMISES THAT PAROLE BOARDS WILL GRANT EARLY PAROLE, WILL NOT REVOKE PAROLE, OR WILL MAKE PAROLE VIOLATION TERMS RUN CONCURRENTLY WITH THE NEW SENTENCE BASED UPON THE NEGOTIATED PLEA. ALTHOUGH PAROLE-RELATED PLEA BARGAINS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE ENFORCEABLE IN VARIOUS WAYS, THERE DOES NOT YET APPEAR TO BE A CLEARLY DEVELOPED DOCTRINE OF WHETHER SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE WILL BE REQUIRED FOR ULTRA VIRES PROSECUTION PROMISES. IN CONTRAST, CONSIDERATION OF UNADJUDICATED CRIMINAL CONDUCT TO DETERMINE SENTENCES HAS LONG BEEN CONDONED UNDER CASE LAW. THE RATIONALE FOR THIS TYPE OF CONSIDERATION IS BEST EXPLAINED IN THE SUPREME COURT'S DECISION IN WILLIAMS VS. NEW YORK (1949) IN WHICH THE COURT UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF THE DEATH PENALTY BY A JUDGE WHO HAD CONSIDERED EVIDENCE IN ADDITION TO THAT PRESENTED TO THE JURY, INCLUDING INFORMATION FROM THE COURT'S PROBATION OFFICE AND OTHER SOURCES THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD COMMITTED SERIOUS CRIMES FOR WHICH HE WAS NEVER CONVICTED. THE COURT REJECTED THE CONTENTION THAT THE DEFENDANT HAD BEEN DENIED DUE PROCESS, RULING THAT THE FORMAL PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE GUILT DETERMINING PROCESS ARE NEITHER REQUIRED NOR SUITED TO THE SENTENCING PROCESS. SINCE THE PAROLE DECISION MUST ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE SERIOUSNESS OF AN INDIVIDUAL'S CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, PAROLING AUTHORITIES, LIKE SENTENCING COURTS, MAY ALSO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT UNADJUDICATED CRIMINAL CONDUCT, INCLUDING SERIOUS CHARGES REDUCED IN THE COURSE OF PLEA BARGAINING. JUDICIAL DECISIONS ARE FOOTNOTED. (KBL)