Cited by

Boettcher, d at 381 n.5; (“[A] district court generally should not alter the terms of a restitution obligation negotiated as part of a plea agreement if it materially changes the expectations of the parties to the bargain.”).

11 Finally, we note that the plea agreement allowed Heard to avoid trial on the attempted second- degree murder charge and the risk of a longer sentence than agreed upon.4 Plea agreements “are in many ways analogous to a contract between the state and a defendant.”

This principle reflects the rule that courts “generally should not alter the terms of a restitution obligation negotiated as part of a plea agreement if it materially changes the expectations of the parties to the bargain.”

A plea agreement “represent[s] a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).

This reflects the principle that courts “generally should not alter the terms of a restitution obligation negotiated as part of a plea agreement if it materially changes the expectations of the parties to the bargain.”

Plea agreements “represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).

He relies on the premise that global plea agreements “represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants.” (quotation omitted).

is that they represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendant s in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters .” d 596, 603 (Minn. App. 2008) (alteration in original) (quotation omitted) .

Plea agreements are similar to contracts; “[a]n unqualified promise made as part of a plea agreement must be honored.” State v. Meredyk , (“The essence of plea agreements .

sentencing by [the defendant’s] own admissions.” (concluding that district court had authority to modify res titution for other reasons).

is that they repres ent a bargained-for understanding between the gove rnment and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quoting United States v. Porter , 405 F.3d 1136, 1145 ( 10th Cir. 2005)).

7 Plea agreements are similar to contracts; “[a]n unqualified promise made as part of a plea agreement must be honored.”

see also Evans , d at 35 7 (holding that a rule 27 motion is not the proper method to challenge a restitution award if payment of restitution is a ma terial part of the negotiation ).

Plea agreements “represent a bargained -for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foreg oes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).

is that they represent a bargained -for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).

to argue that, under Minn. Stat. § 611A.04, the d istrict court had no authority to amend because restitution had not been reserved.

’” (quoting United States v. Porter , 405 F.3d 11 36, 1145 (10th Cir. 2005)).

(stating th at plea agreements represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and a defendant).

ns where impo sition of a conditional-release period would violate the plea agreement); -75 (Minn. 2000) (stating that a p lea agreement was not violated when unaccounted-for conditional- release term exceeded the plea agreement’s maximum term , because the opportunity for 16 probation, not the duration of the sentence, induced the plea); State v. Meredyk , (holding that the district court erred by modifying a discretionary restitution order because the defendant agreed to a specific amount of r

This court has recognized that a plea agreement “represent[s] a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side forgoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotations omitted).

A plea agreement is in many ways “analogous to a contract between the state and a defendant.”

A plea agreement is “analogous to a contract between the state and a defendant.”

Plea agreements “represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).

d 596, 601 (Minn. App. 2008).

(describing a plea agreement as “a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side foregoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty”).

Plea agreements “represent a bargained-for understanding between the government and criminal defendants in which each side forgoes certain rights and assumes certain risks in exchange for a degree of certainty as to the outcome of criminal matters.” (quotation omitted).