Judges are not required to impose a sentence in a joint submission and failure to respect a common submission by a judge is not, in itself, grounds for reducing sentences on appeal. However, if a judge does not routinely respect the common words, that judge would impair the Crown`s ability to meaningfully induce the accused to plead guilty. Defence counsel would be detained if they were considered uns valuable to a particular judge, which would lead to otherwise avoidable trials. For these reasons, Canadian judges will generally impose a sentence as part of a joint filing.  If an accused does not accept a plea, the next step is to prepare for a trial. Unsurprisingly, the judge rejected the arguments (after learning of the extent of Morales` criminal history), did not allow Morales to resume his plea (which the judge should have done) and sentenced Morales to triple – with sentence – 21 months. Morales appealed. In the application, if the conditional suspension of the sentence could be applied under Article 163 and the Italian Penal Code, the defendant could subser through the application for the suspension; If the judge refuses the stay, the hearing is denied. If the prosecutor and the accused have reached an agreement, the proposal is submitted to the judge who can refuse or accept the hearing. The Higher Court ruled that the prosecutor violated the plea agreement by his repeated and incendiary references to Morales` criminal history in his memorandum. The higher court imposed the literal conditions of the promise and demanded strict compliance by the prosecutor. Morales was eventually sentenced to six months in prison for which he was tried.
In oral arguments, prosecutors generally agree to reduce an accused`s sentence. They often do this by reducing the number of charges of the seriousness of the charge of those charged. They may also agree to recommend that the accused receive reduced sentences. Some arguments ask the accused to do more than plead guilty. For example, prosecutors often offer favourable arguments for accused who agree to testify for the state against other defendants. There are some cases of crimes where California law prohibits the state from negotiating. These include the case of the U.S. v.
Morales-Heredia, handed down by the 9th Court of Appeals on October 8, 2014. Morales pleads guilty to illegally entering the United States from Mexico. He made the usual arguments: an admission of early guilt, no prior motions and no right of appeal. The prosecutor promised a four-step reduction in his directives. Both parties agreed not to attempt to deviate or amend the agreement. But at the time of the conviction, the prosecutor wrote to the judge that Morales had 20 years of criminal history, including convictions for selling heroin and domestic violence. The prosecutor also wrote that Morales had „a consequent disregard for U.S. criminal and immigration laws“ and that he „posed a threat to the community because his criminal history includes both drug trafficking and battery.“ Apparently, this was not necessary for the prosecutor. The morals lawyer claimed (rightly) that the prosecutor had violated the pleading agreement by not recommending the verdict they had agreed to give in this case for 6 months in prison.