State v. Landera
Annotate this CaseDefendant entered into a plea agreement with the State pleading guilty to ten counts of possession of child pornography. The court found Defendant guilty on all counts. After the State gave its sentencing recommendation, Defendant objected, reminding the court that the State was bound by the plea agreement to give an unqualified recommendation of probation. The court sentenced Defendant to thirty months' to four years' imprisonment on each count, determining that Defendant was not fit to be sentenced to a term of probation. The court of appeals vacated Defendant's sentences and remanded for resentencing, concluding that the State had violated the plea agreement by recommending a term of incarceration as a condition of probation. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the court of appeals erred in enforcing an implied promise by the State not to recommend an additional condition of probation; but (2) the State violated its plea agreement with Defendant not by recommending incarceration as a condition of probation but by effectively arguing for incarceration instead of probation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.