In past threads, the question has been raised as to whether the State has any remedy for when the judge goes under the plea bargain. Seems another state also looked at the issue:

Details.

Shouldn't the fact that Massachusetts courts ruled that way be prima facie evidence that Texas courts should do the opposite?

Is not the attorney who advised his client to accept the state's offer necessarily ineffective, because he did not properly evaluate the mitigating factors? Shannon, maybe the inference is more than prima facie.

The Court said:

"A guilty plea, once accepted, is a judicial finding of guilt that is as final and as conclusive as a jury�s guilty verdict,� Gants wrote. Even if the judge ignores the suggested sentence length, Gants continued, the agreement on a guilty plea still stands."
_________________________________________________

I have approached this issue in two ways: One, convinced a judge or two that fair is fair, and have them tell the defendant up front that the State would be allowed to withdraw its bargain if he or she went below it. The second way was to make the jury waiver conditional on the judge following the plea agreement. Whether or not this is perfectly legal, I don't know. The judge always followed the plea agreement.

Now, one factor the MA court brought up was the above. The judge actually entered a finding of guilt. Our judges traditionally withold a finding and proceed to the plea bargain. If the judge is going to accept it, he or she says, I"I am going to follow the plea bargain, therefore, I find you guilty, blah blah blah...." Issue of double jeopardy averted.

Once or twice a judge has said he or she thought the punishment too severe, and has asked for reconsideration. Generally, on second look, I found merit in what the judge was seeing (and it was usually something brought up during the sentencing hearing that the defense had failed to disclose in mitigation during plea negotiations), and the issue was resolved. Justice was served.

(I didn't ingratiate myself to one judge who told me how tough he was, and I responded that I thought he was a "defense counsel in robes". Naw, It was all in good fun, actually. He hurled his usual accusation that I was heartless.)

All in all, I have to agree that this decision IS prima facie evidence that we ignore MA and get on with justice.