Perrigan v. State

Summary

The Court affirmed Perrigan’s sentence, holding that the plea agreement did not require the judge who accepted his plea to impose sentence. Perrigan’s written agreement, truth-in-sentencing form, and plea colloquy disclosed the complete terms of the agreement and stated that sentencing remained within the court’s discretion. Because Perrigan did not object to reassignment or to the new judge’s presiding at sentencing, his claim was reviewed for plain error and failed.