Santobello v. New York
- Decided
- December 20, 1971
- Docket
- 70-98
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,257 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that the government must be held to a promise made to a defendant during plea negotiations if that promise induced the defendant's guilty plea — (untitled) (1993)
- holding that Rule 11(f) was not violated, even though the district court did not directly question the defendant as to the factual basis for the plea — State v. Thomas (2000)
- holding that the state is bound to carry out its side of the bargain once the court accepts a plea agreement — Bennett v. Collins (1994)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Chief Justice Burger delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the State’s failure to keep a commitment concerning [*258] the sentence recommendation on a guilty plea required a new trial.
The facts are not in dispute. The State of New York indicted petitioner in 1969 on two felony counts, Promoting Gambling in the First Degree, and Possession of Gambling Records in the First Degree, N. Y. Penal Law §§ 225.10, 225.20. Petitioner first entered a plea of not guilty to both counts. After negotiations, the Assistant District Attorney in charge of the case agreed to permit petitioner to plead guilty to a lesser-included offense, Possession of Gambling Records in the Second Degree, N. Y. Penal Law § 225.15, conviction of which would carry a maximum prison sentence of one year. The prosecutor agreed to make no recommendation as to the sentence.
Cite this
Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.