Judges get say on plea deals

January 13, 2012|By Martine Powers and John R. Ellement, Globe Staff

The state’s highest court today confirmed a little-known judicial power to ignore prosecutors and shorten criminal sentences in plea deals if the judge believes “justice may not have been done.’’

In a 6-1 decision, the Supreme Judicial Court’s decided to make it clear that judges are allowed to shorten sentences because of mitigating circumstances. The court also asserted that prosecutors cannot revoke a plea deal if a judge shortens the agreed-upon sentence.

Justice Francis X. Spina, the cases’ sole dissenter, worried that the case could open the door to judges using their power to act as pseudo-defense attorneys.

State statute on judicial powers of sentencing is hazy: A judge cannot “impose a sentence that exceeds the terms of the [plea bargain] recommendation,” but the law says nothing about whether a judge can shorten the sentence agreement.

Over the years, a few judges took the ambiguity of that statute to mean that reducing sentences was allowable, and two of those cases prompted the high court’s ruling today that the practice is fair.

“The judge simply exercised a quintessential judicial power — the power to sentence — and ultimately concluded that the agreed recommendation was more severe than justice permitted,” wrote Justice Ralph D. Gants, who represented the majority.

Essex District Attorney Jonathan Blodgett, whose office was prosecuting one of the men whose cases was tackled by the SJC, argued that the ruling will dramatically change the criminal justice landscape.

“It will definitely change the way we do business in the district courts in the future,’’ Blodgett said. “I think it is going to be problematic.’’

In a statement today, Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley said he thinks the decision will have a “damaging effect” on the criminal justice system

“This novel interpretation of a long established rule means that prosecutors, the elected voice of the people, are now the only party in a courtroom who will be held to their word,” wrote Conley, whose office was involved in one of the cases. “Judges are no longer required to honor the terms of any agreement that protects the public’s interest – only a defendant’s interest.”

Today’s decision centered on two similar cases. In one, a 2009 drug possession arrest, a judge agreed to the sentence set forth in the plea bargain — two-and-a-half years in prison — but changed his mind hours later as he considered the defendant’s history of mental illness and a recent injury that required prescribed painkillers. He shortened the sentence to one year.

Prosecutors filed an appeal in 2010, arguing that the practice of judges curbing sentences in plea deals would undercut prosecutors’ rights.