Commonwealth v. Dean-Ganek, 461 Mass. 305

In Rodriguez, the court held a judge may reduce a sentence on a Rule 29(a) motion even with an agreed sentencing recommendation.
This case asks whether the Commonwealth may force vacating a guilty plea when the plea involved a charge concession and a sentence below the recommendation.
Defendant Aaron Dean-Ganek faced armed robbery; the Commonwealth reduced the charge to larceny from a person via partial nolle prosequi in exchange for a guilty plea and a two-year recommended sentence with conditions.
At plea, the judge accepted the plea to the lesser charge; later, a different prosecutor sought to impose or reject the recommendation and asserted the reduction was contingent on sentencing.
The judge imposed the agreed two-year sentence; the Commonwealth sought to vacate or remand for resentencing, arguing Rule 12 allowed it.
The court held the Commonwealth cannot undo the plea or demand resentencing, citing double jeopardy and Rule 12's structure.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May Commonwealth withdraw plea when judge imposes below recommendation	Commonwealth argues Rule 12 allows withdrawal/resentencing if judge deviates.	Dean-Ganek contends Rule 12 protects defendant, not allowing Commonwealth withdrawal.	Commonwealth may not vacate plea; Rule 12 does not permit withdrawal.
Double jeopardy bar to vacating guilty plea	Commonwealth contends no jeopardy bar if plea vacated.	Dean-Ganek asserts risk of retrial on greater charge.	Double jeopardy prevents vacating the guilty plea and re-prosecuting the greater charge.
Whether plea agreement terms bind the judge when charge concession occurred	Commonwealth says defendant conceded to lesser charge contingent on binding recommendation.	Dean-Ganek argues consent/understanding binding on judge was present.	Rule 12 contemplates binding recommendations; judge’s deviation cannot nullify the agreement.
Constitutional and procedure implications of art. 30 and judge’s role	Commonwealth argues judge usurped executive function by deviating.	Dean-Ganek argues art. 30 limitation applies to executive over prosecutors.	The court held no art. 30 violation; sentencing power remained judicial, not usurping executive.

Commonwealth v. Rodriguez, No official reporter provided (Mass. 2012) (set framework for Rule 12 handling of plea agreements with sentence recommendations)
Commonwealth v. Dormady, 423 Mass. 190 (Mass. 1996) (promises by the district attorney to be honored when defendant relies on them)
Commonwealth v. Pelletier, 62 Mass. App. Ct. 145 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (consent issues in plea agreements; binding effects when accepted)
Commonwealth v. Cabrera, 449 Mass. 825 (Mass. 2007) (conviction on lesser offense bars prosecution of greater offense)
Commonwealth v. Given, 441 Mass. 741 (Mass. 2004) (double jeopardy aspects and lesser included offenses)
Ariel A. v. Commonwealth, 420 Mass. 281 (Mass. 1995) (foundational rule on finality of guilty findings in pleas)
United States v. Donahey, 529 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1976) (government may withdraw from plea bargain where breach occurs)
Commonwealth v. Therrien, 359 Mass. 500 (Mass. 1971) (double jeopardy and plea procedures in Massachusetts)
Commonwealth v. Gordon, 410 Mass. 498 (Mass. 1991) (ethics and prosecutorial promises in plea negotiations)