Summary
In State ex. rel. Sampson v. Superior Court, 71 Wn. 484, 128 P. 1054, Ann. Cas. 1914C, 591, it is said that, where the result of the election shows that it is "an intelligent expression of the popular will," the result will not be set aside for irregularity.
Summary of this case from Groom v. Port of BellinghamOpinion
No. 79-017
Decided May 23, 1979
Criminal Law — Plea-Bargaining — Binding Pleas Where prisoner and trial judge relied on agreement with county attorney in which bargained guilty plea recommended that a state prison sentence be served in county house of correction, trial court and prisoner were entitled to rely upon the agreement of the county attorney, and, under the circumstances, writ of prohibition contesting order of superior court that prisoner sentenced to more than one year of confinement serve his sentence at county house of correction would not be issued.
Carleton Eldredge, Rockingham County attorney, of Exeter (Paul R. Pudloski orally), for the plaintiff.
Thomas D. Rath, attorney general (Peter W. Mosseau, attorney, orally), for the defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This is a petition for a writ of prohibition to contest the validity of an order of the superior court that a prisoner sentenced to more than one year of confinement serve his sentence at the Rockingham County House of Correction.
One Fidler entered a bargained guilty plea. The agreement with the county attorney recommended that a State prison sentence be served in the Rockingham County House of Correction. Fidler and the trial judge relied on that bargain and agreement by the county attorney. Fidler was sent to the prison for processing. His return to Rockingham County was opposed by the sheriff under RSA 623:4.
The trial court was entitled to assume that the county attorney knew the law and had cleared the matter with the sheriff. The court and Fidler were entitled to rely upon the agreement of the county attorney.
"Prohibition is an extraordinary remedy which, although within the discretion of this court, is used with caution and forebearance and only when the right to relief is clear." State v. Superior Court, 116 N.H. 1, 2, 350 A.2d 626, 627 (1976). Under the circumstances of this case we decline to issue the writ.
Writ of prohibition denied.