I.
Sally Shoplifter
Sally Shoplifter (“Sally”) is charged with Misdemeanor Larceny, a Class 1 Misdemeanor,
and Second Degree Trespass, a Class 3 Misdemeanor, in violation of North Carolina General
Statutes 14-71(a) and 14-159.13. The evidence against Sally is very strong given that a manager
observed her committing these crimes. As a result, I believe the best possible outcome and the
outcome I hope to attain for Sally, is a guilty plea to the Misdemeanor Larceny charge in return
for a dismissal of the Second Degree Trespass charge. In addition, I hope the State will agree to
sentence her in the Intermediate range, suspending the possible active sentence, in exchange for
1 year of supervised probation that includes a drug treatment condition as well as a provision.
At the plea negotiation meeting, I, on behalf of Sally, offered to ADA Radoniqi that Sally
would be willing to plead guilty to the lesser offense of Shoplifting by Concealing Merchandise,
a Class 3 Misdemeanor pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §14-72.1(e), if the State will
amend the misdemeanor statement of charges to reflect that charge in place of the Misdemeanor
Larceny charge as well as dismissing the Second Degree Trespass charge. The ADA refused to
amend the misdemeanor statement of charges. I proposed that Sally would be willing to plead
guilty to Misdemeanor Larceny if the State would dismiss the Second Degree Trespass Charge
and not seek the maximum active sentence. Since Sally will plead guilty to the Class 1
Misdemeanor of Misdemeanor Larceny, the ADA agreed with my suggestion to dismiss the
Class 3 Misdemeanor charge of Second Degree Trespass.
Sally has a total of seventeen prior convictions. Irrespective of the type of convictions
or severity of punishment associated with them, this places Sally at a Prior Record Level of III.
N.C.G.S. 15A-1340. A Class 1 Misdemeanor at a Prior Record Level of III exposes Sally to a
community, intermediate, or active punishment range for a period of 1-120. I proposed that
Sally be sentenced to an Intermediate Punishment of supervised probation for a period of 1 year
with no active sentence in exchange for (1) Sally paying restitution in the amount of $5.95 to
Food Lion and (2) Sally receiving a substance abuse assessment and complying with all
recommendations set forth therein. Accordingly, the terms of Sally’s probation will include, but
not be limited to: (1) Refraining from using any controlled substances, (2) To not be on or about
the premises of any Food Lion and (3) To not commit any crime while on probation. The ADA
agreed to these terms but insisted on an active sentence. I offered a 10 day active sentence with
110 suspended, and the ADA demanded 90 days active with 30 days suspended. We agreed to a
30 day active sentence with 90 suspended, but, if Sally fails to comply with the aforementioned
terms or violates any terms of her probation, she will have the 90 day suspended time activated.
I will recommend Sally accept this plea agreement because, although it contains an active
sentence, the time served in jail is far less than what a judge would most likely sentence due to
her extensive prior criminal record and multiple previous larceny charges. The plea bargain also
affords Sally the opportunity to receive substance abuse treatment and specifically deters her
from violating the terms of her treatment and probation by reserving the possibility of activating
her suspended sentence. I feel this is the best, realistic outcome for my client given her extensive
criminal history, proclivity towards committing similar crimes, and the strength of the evidence
against her in the current case.
II.
Edward Smith
Due to the strong factual basis for Edward Smith’s (“Smith”) three charges of (1) Assault
on a Female, a Class A1 Misdemeanor; (2) Injury to Real Property, a Class 1 Misdemeanor; (3)
Misdemeanor Breaking or Entering of a Building, a Class 1 Misdemeanor in violation of North
Carolina General Statutes 14-33(c)(2), 14-127, 14-54(b), I, as the prosecutor, have no problem
proceeding to trial on all charges. However, the ideal outcome from the State’s perspective is a
guilty plea to the A1 misdemeanor of Assault on a Female with Smith serving the maximum
penalty of 75 days active. I would be willing to drop the other two charges because, even if
convicted on all three, Smith’s sentences for each will most likely be run concurrently. As a
result, he would still only serve a maximum of 75 days active.
I began the negotiation by notifying Counsel for the defense, Mr. Manzo, that the State
would have no problem proceeding to trial on all of the charges. Defense Counsel countered by
asking if the State would dismiss both Class 1 Misdemeanors in exchange for a plea of guilty to
the class A1 Misdemeanor of Assault on a Female. In response, to provide for judicial economy,
I offered that the State would be willing to drop the Injury to Real Property charge if Smith
pleads guilty to both Assault on a Female and Misdemeanor Breaking or Entering of a Building.
Defense Counsel insisted that his client will only plead guilty to the Class A1 Assault on a
Female if the State drops the other two charges. As a result, we agreed that Smith will plead
guilty to Assault on a Female and the State will drop the two Class 1 Misdemeanor Charges, but
Smith will (1) serve the maximum sentence for the A1 misdemeanor based on his prior record
level in the active range; (2) be placed on 1 year supervised probation upon his release with a
term of his probation to be in no contact with any victims of the current case and; (3) pay
restitution for any damage caused to the real or personal property of any victim in the current
case.
Since Smith is a Prior Record Level II due to his four prior convictions, his guilty plea to
the Class A1 Misdemeanor of Assault on a Female he is exposed to a 1-75 day sentence in either
the community, intermediate, or active range. Per the negotiated plea, he will serve the
maximum 75 day sentence in the active range and serve 1 year of supervised probation upon
release complying with all terms provided therein. The factual basis for each of the charges is
strong, as each was witnessed and reported by an independent, disinterested third party who, if
he or she testifies, would most likely lead to a conviction on all three counts. However, a guilty
plea on the most severe charge in exchange for a dismissal on the two lesser charges will have
almost the same effect as a conviction on all three charges because, even if Smith is convicted
and sentence to the maximum active sentence for each of the three charges, the sentences will
likely run concurrently. In that case, his sentence would still be 75 days active. Therefore, for
the sake of judicial economy as well as attaining a plea that leads to an active sentence, this
negotiation is a just result to Smith’s case that reflects the severity of the crimes he committed,
the strength of the evidence against him, the reality that children observed him commit these
crimes, the societal need for him to be incarcerated, and the interest of the victims to have him
incarcerated.