Julius D. Thomas v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, 2016 SC 000593

Appellant Julius D. Thomas was convicted by a jury of incest, third-degree rape, and third-degree sodomy in Jefferson Circuit Court.
The day after conviction, Thomas entered a written penalty agreement: he waived his statutory right to a jury penalty-phase under KRS 532.055(2) and his right to appeal in exchange for the Commonwealth recommending a total 20-year sentence.
The trial court conducted a colloquy, found Thomas knowingly and intelligently entered the agreement, and accepted it in lieu of a jury penalty-phase.
About two months later and before final sentencing, Thomas moved to vacate the penalty agreement, claiming he was rushed, emotionally impaired, not fully informed, and that he had not pled guilty to the underlying offenses.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding the waiver was voluntary and intelligent and that Thomas was bound by the agreement; Thomas was sentenced pursuant to the agreement and appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of waiver of appellate/right-to-penalty jury	Thomas: waiver was involuntary, made while rushed and emotionally disturbed, not knowing consequences	Commonwealth: colloquy shows Thomas understood rights waived; no coercion or incompetence	Waiver was voluntary, knowing, intelligent; substantial evidence supports trial court finding
Trial court's denial of motion to withdraw penalty agreement	Thomas: even if valid, trial court abused discretion; withdrawal would be fair and just	Commonwealth: detrimental reliance; agreement is a binding contract and fairness disfavors withdrawal	Denial was not an abuse of discretion; Thomas must be held to his bargain

Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (waiver must be voluntary, knowing, and intelligent)
Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (court must affirmatively show waiver is voluntary and intelligent)
Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (solemn statements in open court carry strong presumption of verity)
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (prosecutorial promise in plea bargaining must be enforced)
Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (defendant aware of consequences must live with bargaining choice)
Edmonds v. Commonwealth, 189 S.W.3d 558 (Ky. 2006) (standard of review for waiver findings)
Rodriguez v. Commonwealth, 87 S.W.3d 8 (Ky. 2002) (waiver review authority)
Elkins v. Commonwealth, 154 S.W.3d 298 (Ky. App. 2004) (waiver review authority)
Parson v. Commonwealth, 144 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2004) (detrimental reliance by prosecution supports enforcing agreement)
Reyes, Commonwealth v., 764 S.W.2d 62 (Ky. 1989) (prosecutorial offer accepted by accused creates binding agreement)
English, Commonwealth v., 993 S.W.2d 941 (Ky. 1999) (standard for abuse of discretion in denying withdrawal)