Skip to Content
Call Today for a Consultation (205) 506-5590 205-335-2640

Terms and Conditions: Navigating the Complexities of Plea Agreements


In a case that demonstrates the rigid nature of written agreements, the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals recently heard an appeal arising from Jefferson County. This case, Nicholas James Horton v. State of Alabama, highlights parallels within different areas of the law. These parallels resulted in a holding that emphasized all terms of the plea agreement, including terms agreed upon by the defendant, in an approach that mirrors the principles of contract law.

Horton pled guilty to first-degree robbery and was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment, to be split for him to serve 3 years’ imprisonment. As part of his plea deal, the judge informed Horton that he must appear at the sentencing hearing to be sentenced in accordance with the deal. However, Horton did not appear at the hearing. He had requested two additional days for sentencing, but the court declined the request, and instead gave Horton one day to appear. When he failed to appear on the subsequent day, he was arrested. Instead of being sentenced under the terms of his plea deal, he was given a straight sentence of 25 years’ imprisonment. Horton then filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea, which was denied, leading to this appeal

On appeal, Horton argued that his failure to appear did not give the court authority to extend his sentence beyond what had been agreed upon for the plea. He asserted that, because the sentence was outside of the range in the plea agreement, the court should have allowed him to withdraw his guilty plea.

To analyze Horton’s argument, the Court looked to older precedent from the Alabama Supreme Court in a case called State v. Holman. In Holman, the denial of a motion to withdraw a guilty plea was affirmed, with the court emphasizing that the additional conditions of the plea agreement were binding. It was within the court’s authority to sentence beyond the range included in the plea agreement if the conditions were not met. The Court drew parallels between Holman and Horton’s case, noting that Horton was informed that he was required to attend his sentencing hearing to receive benefits of the plea deal. Accordingly, the lower court’s decision to deny Horton’s motion was affirmed.

Nicholas James Horton v. State of Alabama illustrates the significance of each and every term of a written agreement. This concept follows established principles of contract law, applying them to a criminal context. Because Horton was aware of and agreed to every term of the plea agreement, including the requirement that he appear, Horton had to meet each term to receive the benefits of the plea agreement.

If you have a Federal Criminal case, a State Criminal case, a Municipal Case or a Family Law case, contact Joe Ingram or Ingram Law LLC at 205-335-2640. Get Relief Get Results.


Contact Ingram Law Today

Request a Consultation by Filling Out This Form
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.
  • By submitting, you agree to be contacted about your request & other information using automated technology. Message frequency varies. Msg & data rates may apply. Text STOP to cancel. Acceptable Use Policy