State v. Bullplume, 2011 MT 40

Bullplume pleaded no contest to mitigated deliberate homicide; conviction remanded after plea was deemed ineffective and original sentence reversed.
On remand, a status conference (July 30, 2009) discussed potential joint sentencing; court warned it would distinguish trial transcript from sentencing facts.
On August 31, 2009, the parties signed a pre-sentence agreement to jointly recommend 40 years with 10 suspended; the agreement was non-binding and the court remained free to sentence.
Probation PSI (October 29, 2009) recommended 40 years with no suspension.
At sentencing (November 12, 2009) the court rejected the joint recommendation and imposed 40 years with no suspension and a 20-year parole-eligibility restriction.
Bullplume appeals arguing (1) state breached the pre-sentence agreement and (2) sentence violated due process rights by vindictiveness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the State breach the pre-sentence agreement?	Bullplume claims breach through endorsement of transcript reading, improper testimony, and failure to jointly recommend.	Bullplume argues the State failed to honor the joint recommendation and improper conduct undermined the agreement.	No breach; actions did not undermine the agreement; PSI cross-examination and testimony were permissible.
Did the sentence violate due process by vindictiveness?	Bullplume asserts increased sentence post-appeal shows vindictiveness.	Sentence reflects adjusted, post-appeal conduct without punitive motive; parole term differs from prior term.	No due-process violation; no judicial vindictiveness shown; 20-year parole restriction is not an increased sentence.

State v. Rardon, 115 P.3d 182 (2005 MT 129) (annualized duties under plea agreements; breach assessments; lack of rigid criteria)
State v. Rahn, 187 P.3d 622 (2008 MT 201) (strictly meet agreement conditions to retain benefits)
State v. Rardon, 313 Mont. 321, 61 P.3d 132 (2002 MT 345) (Rardon II: prosecutor's enthusiasm irrelevant if not undermining)
State v. Redfern, 99 P.3d 223 (2004 MT 277) (due process; reasons for sentence must be on record)
State v. Jackson, 338 Mont. 344, 165 P.3d 321 (2007 MT 186) (vindictiveness and recordation of reasons)
North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) (prohibition against vindictive sentencing upon successful appeals)
State v. Heath, 329 Mont. 226, 123 P.3d 228 (2005 MT 280) (vindictiveness; burden on defendant to show increased sentence)
State v. Van Buren, 49 P.3d 966 (2002 Wash.App.) (prosecutor's conduct not dispositive if good faith)
Rardon III, ? (2005 MT 129) (contractual duties in plea agreements; breach analysis)