State Of Washington v. Ryan Daniel Erker, 75206-5

Ryan Erker pleaded guilty to second-degree murder with a 60-month firearm enhancement after nearly two years of plea negotiations; the parties agreed the State would recommend the low end of the standard range (183 months including the enhancement).
The presentence report noted Erker had difficulty understanding the felony murder rule; the plea included factual admissions about arranging a home-invasion burglary/robbery that led to the victim's death.
At sentencing the State recommended the agreed low-end term but, in response to a statement in the presentence report, the prosecutor explained the felony murder rule to the defendant and victims’ families.
Victim family members spoke at sentencing; Erker and family members also spoke and expressed remorse.
The trial court departed from the parties’ agreed recommendation and imposed a mid-range sentence (173 months) plus the 60-month enhancement (total 233 months), explaining it starts at mid-range and adjusts for aggravating/mitigating factors.
Erker appealed, arguing the prosecutor’s unsolicited comments about the felony murder rule undercut the plea agreement and breached the State’s obligation to recommend the agreed sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State breach the plea agreement by commenting about the felony murder rule at sentencing?	Erker: the prosecutor’s unsolicited explanation made him seem more culpable and implicitly urged a higher sentence, undermining the agreed recommendation.	State: it fulfilled the agreement by recommending the low-end term; explanatory comments did not advocate for a harsher sentence and relied on facts already in the record.	No breach. The court found the State recommended the agreed sentence and the felony-murder comments did not advocate aggravating facts beyond the record or make the crime more egregious than others in the class.

State v. Sledge, 133 Wn.2d 828 (1997) (prosecutor must follow plea agreement and not undermine it at sentencing)
State v. Williams, 103 Wn. App. 231 (2000) (objective standard for evaluating whether prosecutor undercut plea agreement)
State v. Neisler, 191 Wn. App. 259 (2016) (standard of review: de novo for whether State breached plea agreement)
State v. Carreno-Maldonado, 135 Wn. App. 77 (2006) (prosecutor may not present facts or argument that make the offense appear more egregious than similar crimes)
State v. Van Buren, 101 Wn. App. 206 (2000) (improper for prosecutor to advocate for an exceptional sentence by emphasizing aggravating factors beyond the agreed recommendation)
State v. Jerde, 93 Wn. App. 774 (1999) (prosecutor crossed the line by underscoring aggravating facts to justify a higher sentence)