State v. Sanney.
SCWC-15-0000548
| Haw. | Sep 20, 2017Background
- Defendant Yoshiro Sanney pled no contest to second-degree sexual assault and attempted sexual assault after the trial judge stated an inclination to sentence him to probation with up to 18 months jail. There was no plea agreement with the State.
- At the change-of-plea colloquy, the judge warned the inclination was not a promise; Sanney acknowledged that he understood.
- A presentence investigation (PSI) produced statements by Sanney that the court found troubling and inconsistent with the representations supporting the original inclination.
- At sentencing the court departed from its earlier inclination and imposed concurrent 10-year terms. Sanney moved to reconsider, seeking resentencing under the original inclination (but did not request plea withdrawal below).
- Lower courts denied relief; the Hawai‘i Supreme Court affirmed the denial, holding the court did not abuse its discretion because new PSI information justified the change. The court issued a prospective rule about sentencing inclinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sanney) | Defendant's Argument (State / Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by denying reconsideration and resentencing per its prior sentencing inclination | Sanney: he relied on the judge’s inclination in pleading and should be resentenced per that inclination | State/Court: inclination was nonbinding; new PSI information arose after plea justifying a different sentence | Held: No abuse of discretion; Sanney knowingly accepted nonbinding inclination and PSI info justified deviation |
| Whether a defendant who pleads in reliance on a judicial sentencing inclination must be allowed to withdraw the plea if the court later declines the inclination | Sanney: (alternatively) should be allowed to withdraw plea if judge reneges | State/Court: not raised below; court analyzed doctrine and comparative law | Held: Prospectively, courts must advise defendants if they will not follow an inclination and give option to affirm or withdraw plea |
| Proper procedure for judges when giving sentencing inclinations | Sanney: (argues judge’s inclination induced plea) | Court/State: judges must ensure adequate record before indicating sentence; inclination not a bargain with prosecutor | Held: Court endorses guidance (from Clancey) — avoid indicating while plea negotiations ongoing; ensure adequate record; do not bargain or induce plea |
| Remedy where plea was induced by legally impossible or misleading judicial promise | Sanney: relief warranted when judge does not follow inclination | State/Court: apply established plea-withdrawal standards | Held: Existing doctrines (HRPP Rule 32(d), Jim, Fogel) apply; where plea was induced by an impossible promise, withdrawal required; here not applicable |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Clancey, 56 Cal.4th 562 (Cal. 2013) (framework and procedures for judicial “indicated sentences”)
- People v. Cobbs, 443 Mich. 276 (Mich. 1993) (defendant may withdraw plea if judge accepts plea in reliance on an indicated sentence and later imposes a harsher sentence)
- Cripps v. State, 122 Nev. 764 (Nev. 2006) (when judge indicates willingness to follow recommendation, defendant must be allowed to withdraw plea if judge later imposes harsher sentence)
- State v. Fogel, 95 Hawai‘i 398 (Haw. 2001) (plea withdrawal required where plea was induced by a court representation that was statutorily incapable of being effectuated)
- State v. Hussein, 122 Hawai‘i 495 (Haw. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion standard for sentencing review)
- Ex parte Otinger, 493 So.2d 1362 (Ala. 1986) (defendant should be afforded opportunity to withdraw plea if judge cannot follow indicated sentence)
- People v. Moore, 342 Ill. 316 (Ill. 1930) (where plea was induced by an illegal judicial inclination, leave to withdraw plea required)
- State v. Jim, 58 Haw. 574 (Haw. 1978) (different standards for plea-withdrawal motions made before versus after sentencing)