Sometimes, a person charged with a crime has the opportunity to negotiate a deal wherein they are still convicted of a crime, but it is a lesser crime than the one they face. Why would someone do such a thing? Simply to avoid the risk of the consequences of the greater crime they are facing. There are times when someone elects to plea to a lesser charge where the court requires them to do so via a tool called In Re Barr. In Re Barr is a Washington court case from 1984. The Defendant must sign a plea addendum which requires that the defendant affirmatively acknowledge they recognize that they are entering a plea of guilty to a crime that they in fact did not commit. They further declare, via the addendum, that their attorney discussed with them all of the elements of the original charge as well as the elements of the amended charge, and that they understand all of those elements for both charges. The defendant is also required to confirm in writing that there is a factual basis for the original charge and that they understand the prosecution would be unable to prove the amended charge at trial, but they see pleading guilty to the amended charge as being beneficial to them because it will allow them to avoid the risk of conviction on the original charge they face at trial. The defendant must state, in writing, that upon a review of the alternatives before them, they have decided to plead guilty to a crime they did not commit in order to take advantage of the prosecutor’s offer. The plea must be made voluntarily. Based on In Re Barr, the defendant must confirm they understand that the court is required to find a factual basis for the original charge and also agree that the court is entitled to consider the declaration for determination of probable cause and any other information presented by the prosecutor at the time of the plea to support the factual basis for the original charge. This type of resolution is often done on cases like driving while license suspended in the 2nd degree (“DWLS2”). A 2nd degree driving while license suspended is a gross misdemeanor and carries with it 364 days in jail, a fine of $5,000 and a loss of privilege to drive of one year. There are times where a prosecutor may offer a defendant facing a DWLS2 an amended charge of driving while license suspended in the 3rd degree (“DWLS3”). The benefit of such an amendment to DWLS3 is that the person then only faces a misdemeanor, which involves 90 days in jail and a fine of $1,000. There is no impact on a person’s ability to drive; in short, there is no license revocation. Such an amendment and plea, however, generally must include In Re Barr language.
If you or a loved one is in a bind as a result of a criminal charge (whether it involves a driving while license suspended case, or otherwise), immediately contact a Seattle Criminal Defense Attorney. A Criminal lawyer is not going to judge you. Hiring a Seattle Criminal Lawyer to help can – at a minimum – reduce penalties and can help direct people on how to best deal with their criminal case. So, it should go without saying that someone dealing with a criminal case should hire a qualified Seattle Criminal Defense attorney as soon as possible. Criminal charges can cause havoc on a person’s personal and professional life. Anyone dealing with a criminal charge in Washington State should immediately seek the assistance of a seasoned Seattle Criminal Lawyer. SQ Attorneys is the right call – (425) 359-3791 or (206) 441-0900.