State v. Heisser, 249 P.3d 113

Defendant was indicted on one count of first-degree robbery, two counts of second-degree theft, and one count of unauthorized use of a vehicle in Oregon.
A written plea agreement was negotiated, permitting the state to seek departure sentences up to 50 months and the defense to seek presumptive sentences; both sides signed.
At sentencing, defendant challenged the timeliness of the state's notice to rely on an aggravating factor to support upward departure.
The trial court withdrew the guilty pleas, ordered a not-guilty plea, and set the case for trial based on a finding of no meeting of the minds.
Defendant was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 90 months plus 26 months, exceeding the plea‑bargained limits.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the trial court lacked authority to withdraw the pleas; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a valid plea agreement.	State contends there was a mutual agreement enforceable by the court.	Heisser argues there was no meeting of the minds and thus no enforceable plea.	There was an enforceable, unambiguous plea agreement.
Whether differing subjective understandings invalidated the agreement.	State asserted lack of meeting of minds justified withdrawal.	Heisser argued the agreement precluded his challenge to timing of notice.	Objective, not subjective, assent governs; there was mutual assent.
Did the plea agreement bar challenging the timeliness of the notice of upward departure?	Text implied the state could seek departure and defendant could respond with defenses.	The timing challenge was not foreclosed by the agreement.	The timeliness challenge was not barred by the plea; the argument was permissible.
Did the trial court have authority to withdraw the guilty pleas based on lack of meeting of minds?	Court could withdraw under ORS 135.365 due to breach in agreement formation.	Withdrawal over objection was improper if the plea was valid.	The withdrawal was error; the plea agreement was enforceable and the pleas could not be withdrawn on that basis.

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. Supreme Court 1971) (plea agreements are essential and beneficial to justice)
State v. McDonnell, 310 Or. 98 (Or. Supreme Court 1990) (plea negotiations are an essential component of Oregon's system)
United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294 (4th Cir. 1986) (contract-law principles apply to plea agreements with limits)
Kitzke v. Turnidge, 209 Or. 563 (Or. Supreme Court 1957) (emphasizes objective manifestations over subjective intent)
Shop Centers v. Stand. G. Prop., 265 Or. 405 (Or. Supreme Court 1973) (contracts focus on manifested assent and written terms)
Rushlight Co. v. City of Portland, 189 Or. 194 (Or. Supreme Court 1950) (mutual mistake must be fundamental and material)
Valenti v. Hopkins, 324 Or. 324 (Or. Supreme Court 1996) (unambiguous contracts enforced as written)
Eagle Indus., Inc. v. Thompson, 321 Or. 398 (Or. Supreme Court 1995) (text of written contract controls absent ambiguity)
Yogman v. Parrott, 325 Or. 358 (Or. Supreme Court 1997) (contract interpretation hinges on the contract as a whole)
Bennett v. Farmers Ins. Co., 332 Or. 138 (Or. Supreme Court 2001) (mutual assent in contract formation; oral and written communications matter)