The Akron Legal News

Burglar's case remanded on breach of plea

ANNIE YAMSON
Special to the Legal News
Published: September 11, 2014

Ruling that the state did not hold up its end of a plea bargain, the 9th District Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Summit County Court of Common Pleas and remanded a burglary case for the lower court to impose a fair sentence.

The appeal stemmed from the conviction of Michael Grady who, in September 2011 was indicted on 40 different offenses, including numerous counts of breaking and entering and theft. The indictment arose out of a string of break-ins that occurred during the late spring and summer of 2011.

Grady initially entered not guilty pleas to all counts but, at a change-of-plea hearing in 2012, the assistant prosecutor indicated that an agreement had been reached. Grady would plead guilty to 10 counts of breaking and entering in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining 30 counts.

As part of the bargain, Grady agreed to cooperate with several jurisdictions by riding along with law enforcement to the scenes of several unsolved break-ins and truthfully indicating whether or not he was involved in the crime at that location.

The parties agreed that if Grady were to admit to any of the offenses, he would not be charged and the jurisdiction would simply close that case.

After accepting Grady’s plea, the trial court informed him, “The extent to which you do cooperate and are helpful will have a positive impact on your sentence.”

However, at Grady’s sentencing hearing, the assistant prosecutor who had appeared at the plea hearing did not show up. Instead, a different prosecutor appeared and asked that Grady be sentenced to a total of nine years in prison, citing only the victim impact and Grady’s criminal history and ignoring Grady’s cooperation with authorities.

The defense brought the issue to the trial court’s attention, noting that Grady had in fact been helpful to law enforcement and urging the trial court to take the plea bargain into consideration.

The trial court stated that a shorter prison term would not deter Grady from committing future crimes and pointed out that Grady only cooperated with police after he got caught. It imposed consecutive one-year prison terms for a sentence that totaled 10 years.

On appeal to the 9th District, Grady contended that the state materially breached the plea agreement.

“The Supreme Court of Ohio has held that the principles of contract law are generally applicable to the interpretation and enforcement of plea agreements,” wrote Judge Donna Carr on behalf of the district’s three-judge appellate panel. “When a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such a promise must be fulfilled.”

In Grady’s case, the appellate panel found that the matter must be reversed in light of the fact that the state ignored the agreement.

Judge Carr wrote that Grady had pleaded guilty to 10 counts after receiving multiple assurances from both the state and the trial court that his cooperation with law enforcement would have a “favorable impact” on his sentence.

“The state failed to report on his level of cooperation at sentencing as mandated by the plea agreement, and requested a nine-year term of incarceration,” wrote Judge Carr, who noted that the trial court then proceeded to ignore defense counsel when he brought the breach to the attention of the court.

“In light of the state’s failure to abide by the terms of the plea agreement, this matter must be remanded for the trial court to exercise its discretion in fashioning an appropriate remedy for the state’s breach of the plea agreement.”

Judge Carr was joined by Presiding Judge Jennifer Hensal and Judge Beth Whitmore to form the majority and uphold Grady’s claim on appeal.

The case is cited State v. Grady, 2014-Ohio-3475.

[Back]