“the judge had not actually reached the point of deciding what particular sentence to impose,” and absence of specificity as to sentence indicates lack of coercion
How later courts described this case
- “the judge had not actually reached the point of deciding what particular sentence to impose,” and absence of specificity as to sentence indicates lack of coercion
- emphasizing that “the mere fact of a sentence increase does not show vindictiveness”
- “the sentencing judge should take no part whatever in any discussion or communication regarding the sentence to be imposed prior to the entry of a plea of guilty or conviction, or submission to him of a plea agreement”
- "[T]he main purpose underlying Rule 11 is to prevent coerced guilty pleas[.]"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
PRYOR, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the majority opinion. It is my view, however, that the inquiry of the trial judge regarding the possibility of a disposition in the case does not constitute “judicial participation” in a plea bargain. Accordingly, I find no error in that respect.