State of West Virginia v. Keith D. ( 2015 )

No. 13-1123 – State of West Virginia v. Keith D.
FILED
April 9, 2015
RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK
SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
Justice Ketchum, dissenting: OF WEST VIRGINIA
The defendant got “slip-shucked” by the prosecutor. As a result, he was
sentenced to life in prison, rather than a maximum of ten years per his plea
agreement with the prosecutor.
Every prosecutor’s case file contains a defendant’s criminal record with a
list of prior convictions. The prosecutor knows whether he/she will seek a
recidivist information charging the defendant with being a habitual offender
resulting in additional prison time. To the contrary, many times a defendant is
represented by a court-appointed lawyer, as opposed to a public defender or
retained lawyer, who is mostly interested in getting the defendant to plead guilty
and then sending a bill for payment to the State. As a result, the defendant may
agree to a plea with a relatively short prison sentence and ends up being committed
to the penitentiary for life.
It is extremely unfair for the State to agree to a maximum sentence and not
reveal that it will seek additional prison time soon after the defendant pleads guilty.
A deal is a deal. The State should not be allowed to entice a defendant to plead
guilty by agreeing to a plea bargain without informing the defendant that it will
seek a recidivist information which will result in more prison time.
We should adopt the court-made law of other states which requires the
prosecution to notify the defendant that the State is seeking additional, habitual
offender sentencing before the defendant pleads guilty under the terms of a written
plea bargain agreement. See People v. Brown, 492 Mich. 684, 822 N.W.2d 208(2012); State v. Hayes, 423 So.2d 1111 (La. 1982). This is the fair approach rather
than the “tricky” approach approved by the majority opinion.
This defendant got “hoodwinked.” As a result, the defendant will have
plenty of time to think about it while serving his life sentence.
I dissent.