Hartman v. State, 156 A.3d 886

Background

Hartman pleaded guilty in District Court to theft under $100 in exchange for the State’s recommendation of no executed jail time; both parties performed but the District Court imposed 30 days.
Hartman timely filed a de novo appeal to the Circuit Court; in the circuit proceeding she pled not guilty and the State offered a new plea recommending 30 days incarceration.
Hartman moved in circuit court to enforce the original District Court plea agreement; the circuit court denied the motion, holding a de novo trial begins anew and the District Court plea did not bind the parties on appeal.
Hartman appealed; the Court of Special Appeals transferred the case to the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals reviewed (1) whether a District Court plea agreement remains enforceable in a de novo circuit proceeding under contract and plea-agreement principles, and (2) whether the State’s new, harsher plea offer after Hartman’s appeal created a constitutional due-process (vindictiveness) problem.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a District Court plea agreement binds the parties after a de novo appeal to circuit court	Hartman: the original plea (State recommends no jail) should continue on de novo because plea bargains are construed by what defendant reasonably understood	State: plea was limited to District Court; de novo trial is a new proceeding so no continuing obligation	Court: plea agreement did not extend to de novo circuit proceeding; a reasonable defendant would not expect it to continue
Proper standard for reviewing whether a plea agreement was violated	Hartman: (implicitly) de novo review of application of plea terms to appeal context	State: de novo proceeding negates prior bargain	Court: whether a plea agreement was violated is a question of law reviewed de novo
Preservation and appellate review of due-process/vindictiveness claim	Hartman: enforcement needed on due-process grounds; also asserts vindictiveness claim	State: vindictiveness claim not preserved below; only contract/Santobello claim was raised	Court: Santobello-based enforcement claim was preserved; vindictiveness claim was not preserved but Court exercised discretion under Md. Rule 8-131(a) to address it
Whether the State’s harsher recommendation after appeal created a realistic likelihood of vindictiveness violating due process	Hartman: harsher recommendation deters appeals and poses realistic likelihood of vindictiveness	State: new recommendation was a negotiable plea offer; prosecutor free to change position pretrial; analogous to Bordenkircher/Goodwin	Court: no unconstitutional vindictiveness — pretrial plea offer is permissible because defendant was free to accept or reject; no presumption of vindictiveness warranted

Key Cases Cited

Oku v. State, 433 Md. 582 (clarifies de novo trial is a "do over" for facts and guilt but does not automatically preserve plea terms)
Tweedy v. State, 380 Md. 475 (whether plea agreement violated is question of law reviewed de novo)
Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (plea bargains treated like contracts; interpret by reasonable lay understanding from plea colloquy)
Solorzano v. State, 397 Md. 661 (ambiguities in plea agreements construed in favor of defendant; Santobello principles)
Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (prosecutor may make harsher plea offer pretrial; no vindictiveness so long as plea is optional)
Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (presumption of vindictiveness where prosecutor increases charge after defendant exercises right to appeal)
Thigpen v. Roberts, 468 U.S. 27 (applies Blackledge presumption in similar context)
United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (pretrial charging decisions do not automatically trigger presumption of vindictiveness)
State v. Adams, 293 Md. 665 (Maryland precedent aligning with Goodwin on pretrial prosecutorial discretion)
Rios v. State, 186 Md. App. 354 (contract/fair-play approach to formation and enforcement of plea agreements)