Cited by

Thus, the district court is not required “to satisfy itself of the intelligence of a defendant ’s decision to exercise his right to trial instead of accepting a plea offer.” U.S. v. Braxton, 784 F.3d 240, 247 (4th Cir. 2015).3 Finally, “the separation of powers doctrine gives the state the authority to enter into plea agreements with a defendant.”

The district court “is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

“[A] district court may, in its discretion, refuse to accept a plea agreement and is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

(“[T]he separation of powers doctrine gives the state the authority to enter into plea agreements with a defendant.”).

for Lyon Cnty., d at 786 (noting judiciary’s power “comprehends all authority necessary to preserve and improve the fundamental judicial function of deciding cases”) (emphasis added); (stating that power to decide who to prosecute and what charges to file reside with executive branch but final disposition of criminal case rests with judiciary).

But the district court “is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

See Minn. Const. art. I, §§ 6-7; (providing that “the power to decide whom to prosecute and what charge to file resides with the executive branch”); n.3 (Minn. 1980) (explaining that a prosecutor is an executive official).

2 For a more detailed recitation of the underlying facts of this case, –15 (Minn. 2002).

But a district court “may, in its discretion, refuse to accept a plea agreement and is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

See Johnson v. State , (explaining that courts may reject plea agreements that result in injustice).

–18 (Minn. 2002) (courts may reject plea agreements that result in injustice).

“Neither the constitution nor our Rules of Criminal Procedure give to a criminal defendant an absolute right to have his plea of 1 The state analyzes this issue under the separation of powers doctrine, which provides that “the power to decide whom to prosecute and what charge to file resides with the executive branch.”

Johnson v. State , -18 (Min n. 2002).

We do so because the supreme court stated in Clarkin that “the prosecutor is the sole entity in the criminal justice system with the authority to make charging decisions.” d at 689 ().

The parties also agreed that if Johnson provided information that the prosecutor, in his “sole discretion,” deemed “useful,” a judgment of conviction would be entered on count two and Johnson would receive an executed 1 A more detailed factual account can be found in Johnson v. State (Johnson I), -15 (Minn. 2002).

4 “[A] district court may, in its discretion, refuse to accept a plea agreement and is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

And we note that a sentencing court “may, in its discretion, refuse to accept a plea agreement and is not bound by a plea agreement as to any sentence to be imposed.”

Johnson helped a group of people kidnap, beat, and murder Pool over the course of 3 days.1 -14 (Minn. 2002).

-18 (Minn.2002) (stating that “separation of powers doctrine gives the state the authority to enter into plea agreements with a defendant,” although district court may, in its discretion, refuse to accept them); Vahabi, d at 361 (reversing sentence in state’s appeal because district court “imposed a plea

“Under our separation of powers doctrine, the power to decide whom to prosecute and what charge to file resides with the executive branch.”