The judge who presided over a hearing on whether or not the district attorney’s office must honor a plea agreement arranged ahead of the election ruled in favor of the defense Friday.
The hearing stemmed from a plea agreement that was reached ahead of the primary election back in May. The assistant district attorney handling the case at the time, Casey Blount, negotiated a plea deal with defense attorneys Joey Cowart and Robert Busbee in the case against Hansel Echevarria.
Background
Echevarria was arrested by the Georgia Southern Police Department in December 2021 for an incident which allegedly occurred a little more than two years prior in September 2019. He was indicted in 2022 on four felony charges including Aggravated Sexual Battery, Aggravated Sodomy, Criminal Attempt to Commit Rape, and Aggravated Assault. Echevarria spent roughly a month in jail from December 2021 until January 2022 when Judge Lovett Bennett set a bond. Since then, the case has been pending while a plea deal was brokered and attorneys awaited a court date.
The negotiations for the plea occurred over several months and culminated with an agreement via a phone call the week before a scheduled court date on May 29.
But between the day of the phone call and the scheduled court date, District Attorney Daphne Totten suffered a devastating defeat in the Republican Primary, losing more than 60% of the vote and winning only two voting precincts in the four-county judicial circuit. She also returned to work the second day after the election to end the employment of the ADA in this case, offering him the chance to resign or be fired. Most notably, Totten’s loss was in a race against one of the defense attorneys in this case – Robert Busbee.
Following Blount’s exit from the office, Assistant District Attorney Barclay Black took over the case and rescinded the plea deal without notice and on the day of court, despite Blount relaying to him at the time of his departure that a plea had been reached in the case.
The decision by Black prompted pushback from the defense and attorneys sought for a judge to intervene, citing a host of case law about the enforceability of pleas once an agreement has been reached.
Blount testified that the agreement had the blessing of both the alleged victim in the case and his boss, District Attorney Daphne Totten.
During the hearing before Judge Lovett Bennett Jr. on July 9, Black argued that the state should not be required to adhere to the plea agreement because he had presented a much tougher agreement a year and a half prior, that Blount did not have the authority to negotiate the agreement that he did, and even if Blount did, that it was not a binding contract, as the defense alleged. Black stopped short of calling Blount a liar during cross examination, but attempted to challenge Blount’s credibility, his ethical standards, and his work product over the course of his tenure at the office.
Blount contrarily testified that the agreement had the blessing of both the alleged victim in the case and his boss, District Attorney Daphne Totten. He stated repeatedly that an agreement had been reached and that he informed Black, Totten, and others of the agreement before his departure.
You can read more about the background of the negotiations and the hearing on the matter here.
Decision by Judge
In an Order filed Friday, Judge Bennett noted the following:
- Blount “was not a mere employee of the State, but a public officer under sworn oath pursuant to OCGA 45-3-1,” and subsequently the Court considered him “an agent for the Office of the District Attorney of the Ogeechee Judicial Circuit and was authorized to negotiate and making binding offers on its behalf.”
- Blount’s testimony was supported by “the uncontested fact that Mr. Blount had the authority to negotiate a different offer” than the one offered by Black a year and a half prior before Blount was assigned to the case.
- The Court took notice of the fact that Blount “appeared for and on behalf of the State…in a multitude of cases, all while being held out by the District Attorney, and thus the State, as having authority to negotiate and resolve cases on its behalf.”
- Defense attorney Joey Cowart announced during a Calendar Call on May 29 that a plea agreement had been offered and accepted.
- The state’s evidence was circumstance which was “at best, equivocal.”
- The Court communicated via text [after the date asserted as the agreement date] to all defense attorneys that an earlier court date was available if they wished to enter a plea on an earlier date. “There was no response by the State indicating that it wished to go forward with a trial of the Defendant.”
Black had also argued that enforcing the agreement would be a violation of Uniform Superior Court Rule 33.5 with the judge participating improperly in plea negotiations. In response, Bennett wrote in his Order that “the existence of a binding agreement indicates that negotiations had already ended successfully.”
“The Court has no interest in any particular outcome in this case. However, it is the Court’s responsibility to enforce a binding plea agreement reached by both parties.”
Judge Bennett filed the order with the Clerk’s office at 3:57 p.m. At 4:31 p.m., ADA Barclay Black filed a Notice of Appeal, which will send the case to the Court of Appeals. It is unclear how long that will take, but in other cases where the state has appealed a judicial order, cases have been delayed upwards of twelve to fifteen months.
