437 P.3d 838
Wyo.2019Background
- Montano pleaded no contest to two counts of second-degree murder and guilty to two counts of mutilation of dead bodies pursuant to a plea agreement in which the parties agreed to jointly recommend concurrent sentences (51.5 years to life for murders; 2.5–3 years for mutilations).
- Victims’ remains and evidence of dismemberment were found in totes and a 55-gallon barrel; witnesses and physical evidence tied Montano to the killings and mutilations.
- At the plea hearing the prosecutor noted victim-family objections and warned the court it was not bound by the parties’ joint recommendation; the court accepted the pleas.
- At sentencing victims’ families urged consecutive maximum sentences; the prosecutor described the crimes and Montano’s criminal history, urged the court to “go along with the plea agreement,” but also used strong language (e.g., calling Montano a "monster").
- The trial court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed consecutive sentences greater than the plea recommendation. Montano appealed, claiming the State breached the plea agreement by its sentencing comments.
Issues
| Issue | Montano's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State breached the plea agreement by commenting on evidence and characterizing Montano at sentencing | Prosecutor’s negative comments and tone violated the spirit of the agreement and amounted to a breach entitling withdrawal of pleas or specific performance | State argued it recommended the agreed sentence and its factual comments were accurate and permissible; no term precluded commentary | No breach; comments amounted to factual presentation, not refusal to stand by the agreed recommendation |
Key Cases Cited
- Nordwall v. State, 361 P.3d 836 (Wyo. 2015) (standard of review and plea-agreement principles)
- Mendoza v. State, 368 P.3d 886 (Wyo. 2016) (treating plea agreements as contracts; examine promise and defendant’s reasonable understanding)
- Deeds v. State, 335 P.3d 473 (Wyo. 2014) (application of contract principles to plea agreements)
- Browning v. State, 32 P.3d 1061 (Wyo. 2001) (material/substantial breach standard for plea agreements)
- Herrera v. State, 64 P.3d 724 (Wyo. 2003) (prosecutor’s qualifiers can violate plea agreement when they show unwillingness to honor an integral promise)
- Ford v. State, 69 P.3d 407 (Wyo. 2003) (state violated spirit of agreement by arguing defendant was unqualified for agreed alternative placement)
- Clingman v. State, 23 P.3d 27 (Wyo. 2001) (providing factual information does not equate to arguing against a plea recommendation)
- United States v. Hand, 913 F.2d 854 (10th Cir. 1990) (reminding the court of sentencing authority while recommending agreed term is not a breach)
- United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d 1207 (10th Cir. 1998) (distinguishing mere factual statements from statements that effectively persuade rejection of the agreement)