Mason v. StateMason v. State
- Reporters:
- , ,
- Before:
- Griffin
Rоbert Mason (“Mason”) timely appeals his sentenсing as a habitual violent felony offender. Because we are unable to affirm on this record, we vаcate the sentence and remand for a nеw sentencing hearing.
Mason pled guilty to two counts of armed robbery in exchange for a guidelines sentence. The sentence was conditioned on Mаson’s compliance with a “substantial assistance” agreement he executed with the state. In the event of noncomplianee, the agreemеnt provided that Mason would be habitual-ized as a violent felony offender.
Mason’s threshold argument, which wе reject, is that the substantial assistance agreement is unenforceable because it was not made part of the written plea. See McCoy v. State,
The record of the sentencing hearing indicates that Mason did violate his substantial performance agreemеnt in one or, perhaps, two material respects. Although all concerned evidently had copies of the agreement at the hearing, it was not made a part of the record at sentencing аnd we have been unable to divine with certainty its terms from the record on appeal. It is impossible fоr this court to tell whether, as the state asserts, Mason violated the agreement by the manner in which he testified at the trial of his co-defendant and whether thе statement Mason gave to the prosecutоr was a substantial violation of his obligation to give а “sworn and truthful statement.” The statement Mason gave tо the prosecutor also was not made a рart of the record, so that we are unable tо compare the statement with Mason’s obligations under the agreement.
Accordingly, we vacatе the sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing that will create a record adequаte to determine on appellate reviеw whether appellant is entitled to the benefits of the substantial assistance agreement.