State v. Jones, 351 P.3d 1228

Tiffany Jones pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery under a plea agreement in which the State promised to join her request for a downward dispositional departure to probation and recommend Community Corrections supervision if her criminal history was G or lower.
Jones’s criminal history checked out as I (making the State obligated to join the probation request); the PSI did not reflect the plea-agreement recommendation and the plea agreement was filed as an unidentified attachment to the plea form.
A different judge and a different prosecutor handled sentencing; defense counsel told the court the State agreed with the probation request, but the prosecutor at sentencing did not affirmatively state the State recommended probation or recite the agreed bases for departure, instead saying, in effect, he was “sort of bound by the plea agreement.”
The sentencing court denied departure and sentenced Jones to a mid-range prison term; Jones appealed alleging breach of the plea agreement.
The Court of Appeals panel twice upheld the sentencing court (split 2–1); this Court granted review and reversed, holding the State breached the plea agreement by failing to ensure the sentencing court was made aware of the State’s promised recommendation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the State breached its promise to join in the agreed recommendation for probation	Jones: prosecutor failed to affirmatively recommend probation or recite the agreed bases, so the State did not fulfill its promise	State: prosecutor referred the court to the plea agreement and the court had the file/PSI; comments were shorthand and not a failure to recommend	Held: Breach. The prosecutor failed to inform or otherwise ensure the sentencing court knew of the State’s promised recommendation
Whether the issue is procedurally preserved for appeal	Jones raised breach on appeal though she did not object at sentencing; Court of Appeals previously addressed the claim	State did not raise a preservation objection here; appellate practice rules require invoking exceptions when raising new constitutional theories on appeal	Held: Court exercises discretion to reach the merits (State did not press preservation); reviewed claim and addressed breach on the merits

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (a prosecutor’s promise that induces a plea must be fulfilled)
Peterson v. State, 296 Kan. 563 (2013) (plea‑agreement breach principles and remedies)
Urista v. State, 296 Kan. 576 (2013) (distinguishes types of prosecutorial breaches at sentencing)
Hill v. State, 247 Kan. 377 (1990) (when sentencing court knew plea terms, prosecutor need not restate recommendation)
Copes v. State, 290 Kan. 209 (2010) (contract principles guide enforcement of plea agreements)
Mabry v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 504 (1984) (failure to fulfill plea promises can deny due process)
State v. Wills, 244 Kan. 62 (1989) (same constitutional concerns when plea promises are unfulfilled)