Lafontant v. State
13 A.3d 56
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2011Background
- Appellant Lafontant pled guilty to vehicular manslaughter under a plea agreement sentencing cap of no more than four years of active incarceration.
- At sentencing, the court imposed ten years with four years active and five years’ probation; restitution was later ordered in full at a restitution hearing.
- The restitution request was filed by the victim’s representative, asserting medical, funeral, and counseling expenses totaling about $11,977.
- Defense argued restitution was not part of the plea agreement and that ordering restitution violated the bargain.
- The court found, based on CP § 11-603, that restitution is a victim right and permissible as a probation condition when not expressly precluded by the plea.
- Appellant challenged the restitution order on appeal, arguing the plea agreement precluded restitution and seeking vacatur of the restitution order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether restitution violated the plea agreement | Lafontant's restitution was not waived by the State; the victim's statutory right stands independent. | The plea agreement did not include restitution; ordering it breached the agreement and diluted bargain. | Restitution did not breach the plea; victim's right not precluded by the agreement. |
| Whether the victim's restitution right can be pursued as a probation condition | Restitution is a valid probation condition under CP § 11-603 and 11-607 when proper evidence is presented. | Restitution was not contemplated by the plea and should not be imposed as a probation condition. | Court properly ordered restitution as a probation condition under statutory framework. |
| Whether the plea agreement is enforceable to the extent it restricts restitution rights | Victim rights are independent and not contractually waived by the State. | The agreement, even if silent, implied waivers cannot bind victim rights; fairness requires enforcement of the bargain. | Plea agreement did not expressly or impliedly waive restitution rights; rights remain intact. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chaney v. State, 397 Md. 460 (2007) (restitution is a criminal sanction primarily for victim reimbursement)
- Cuffley v. State, 416 Md. 568 (2010) (breach of plea agreement remedies; contract-like enforcement)
- Tweedy v. State, 380 Md. 475 (2004) (plea agreements construed by defendant's reasonable understanding)
- Solorzano v. State, 397 Md. 661 (2007) (breach remedies: specific enforcement or withdrawal of plea)
- Rankin v. State, 174 Md.App. 404 (2007) (suspended sentence includes probation; implications for plea terms)
- Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984) (due process requirements for guilty pleas)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (plea bargaining essentials and enforcement)
- Grey v. Allstate Ins. Co., 363 Md. 445 (2001) (restitution policy and rehabilitative function)
- Barzingus v. Wilheim, 306 F.3d 17 (10th Cir. 2010) (moots of arbitration standards (illustrative))