Legal Opinion · Dissent

Alberto Baiza Rodriguez v. State of Indiana

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided January 11, 2018No. 20A03-1704-CR-724Published

1DissentRucker, Senior Judge

[16] I agree with the majority that " Sections 35-35-3-3 (e)... and 35-38-1-17 (l) may be harmonized...." Slip op. at 10. But I reach a much different conclusion on how these harmonized provisions work together. Therefore, I respectfully dissent.

[17] Enacted in 1980, Indiana Code Section 35-35-3-3 (e) dictates "[i]f the court accepts a plea agreement, it shall be bound by its terms." In like fashion, our courts have long declared that a "plea agreement is contractual in nature, binding the defendant, the state and the trial court." Pannarale v. State , 638 N.E.2d 1247, 1248 (Ind. 1994)…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Pannarale v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1994
  2. State Ex Rel. Goldsmith v. Marion County Superior CourtIndiana Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Wright v. GettingerIndiana Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Waldridge v. Futurex Industries, Inc.Indiana Court of Appeals · 1999
  5. Moryl v. RansoneIndiana Supreme Court · 2014

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API