State Of Washington v. D'marco La'calvin Mobley
77059-4
| Wash. Ct. App. | Feb 25, 2019Background
- In 2012 Mobley was charged with multiple violent felonies. The State offered a plea: guilty to six charges with a joint recommendation of 210 months.
- Mobley rejected the offer based on ineffective assistance of his original trial counsel; he went to trial and was convicted on all counts.
- After direct appeal and remand, the trial court found Mobley had been denied effective assistance and ordered he be given the opportunity to accept the original 210-month plea. A resentencing hearing was set.
- The State filed a resentencing brief recommending 280 months and, three hours before the plea hearing, emailed a second brief that contained no recommendation. At the hearing the court sentenced Mobley to 280 months.
- Mobley appealed, arguing the State breached the plea agreement by advocating for 280 months and not properly recommending 210 months; the State conceded the DNA fee must be stricken under State v. Ramirez.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mobley) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State breach the plea agreement by failing to recommend 210 months? | The State advocated for 280 months and only made the 210-month recommendation in passing; this undermined the agreed recommendation and breached the plea agreement. | The State says its belated second brief corrected the error and no breach occurred. | Court: The State breached the plea agreement by strongly recommending 280 months and failing to timely make the agreed 210-month recommendation to the court. |
| What is the proper remedy for the breach? | Mobley can withdraw his plea or demand specific performance (reoffer and recommendation); he seeks resentencing before a different judge if the State must reoffer. | State did not present convincing counterauthority to deny those remedies. | Court: Mobley may withdraw the plea or demand resentencing; if resentencing is chosen, it should occur before a different judge and the State must make the promised recommendation. |
| Is the DNA collection fee valid? | N/A — Mobley (and parties) agreed Ramirez controls. | State conceded Ramirez requires striking the fee. | Court: Strike the DNA collection fee consistent with State v. Ramirez. |
| Does harmless-error review apply to a plea-breach? | N/A — Mobley argues breach is structural. | State implicitly invoked harmlessness by asserting cure. | Court: Harmless-error review does not apply to State breach of plea agreements; the breach is a structural constitutional error. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ramirez, 191 Wn.2d 732, 426 P.3d 714 (Wash. 2018) (DNA fee authority prompting fee strike)
- State v. MacDonald, 183 Wn.2d 1, 346 P.3d 748 (Wash. 2015) (prosecutor must adhere to plea agreement recommendation; breaches are not subject to harmless-error review)
- State v. Harrison, 148 Wn.2d 550, 61 P.3d 1104 (Wash. 2003) (remedies when plea bargain is breached or ineffective assistance causes offer to lapse)
- State v. Sledge, 133 Wn.2d 828, 947 P.2d 1199 (Wash. 1997) (prosecutor duties under plea agreements)
- Lafler v. Cooper, 566 U.S. 156 (U.S. 2012) (remedy when ineffective assistance of counsel causes loss of a plea offer)