NCJ Number
90991
Journal
Syracuse Law Review Volume: 34 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1983) Pages: 575-617
Date Published
1983
Length
43 pages
Annotation
In the case of People v. Farrar, the New York Court of Appeals affirmed the absolute right of a court to exercise its discretion at sentencing and created the right of a prosecutor to withdraw consent to a plea bargain agreement after the sentencing court determines that the appropriate sentence is less than that which was negotiated.
Abstract
The case entailed an original sentence which was harsher for Lisa Farrar than for her codefendants. All of the defendants had pleaded guilty to the charge of manslaughter in the first degree. In creating a previously unknown right for the prosecutors, the appeals court failed to define standards for the prosecutor's exercise of that right and the relief to be provided. Farrar should be interpreted in a manner consistent with protecting the court's sentencing discretion, the prosecutor's interest, and the right of the defendant. This would require that the court impose a lesser penalty if warranted and that the court identify either prejudice to the defendant or other circumstances militating against vacatur. In the absence of such identification, the negotiated sentence should be imposed. However, the role of the prosecutor and the responsibility of the judge must be kept separate and distinct. Adopting the formalized mechanism of the military system in its plea bargaining process might be an appropriate way of resolving many of the problems raised by the Farrar decision. Thus, putting in writing the terms of the plea agreement would also reduce litigation in other areas of plea bargaining, since it would eliminate doubt about the existence and terms of a plea agreement. The courts and the legislatures should take steps to define the rules of plea bargaining more clearly. A total of 276 reference footnotes are provided. (Author summary modified)