Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County. Docket No: 93-1-03569-3. Date filed: 05/25/94. Judge signing: Hon. J K. Arnold.
Authored by J. Dean Morgan. Concurring: Karen G. Seinfeld, Elaine M. Houghton
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Morgan
MORGAN, J. -- On September 22, 1993, the State filed an original information against William Bruce Oestreich. In Count I, it charged attempted first degree robbery. In Count II, it charged first degree burglary.
On November 17, Oestreich appeared before the court with an offer to plead guilty to attempted first degree robbery only. The State filed an amended information charging only that crime, and the trial court accepted the offered plea.
On a date not shown in the record, Oestreich moved to withdraw his plea. On January 13, 1994, the trial court granted the motion. The State did not move to withdraw the amended information or reinstate the original information. Nor did it file a second amended information re-alleging the original two counts.
The record does not show how or when the case was reset for trial. It appears, however, that the case was reset for trial on both original counts.
On May 25, 1994, Oestreich appeared before the court with a second offer to plead guilty. The prosecutor stated the defendant was present "for a change of plea to one count of attempted robbery in the first degree and one count of burglary in the first degree." *fn1 Defense counsel stated that the defendant had reviewed and signed a written plea form. The plea form described both original counts and contained facts supporting both counts. In the course of questioning the defendant about the plea form, the trial court asked:
Q: What is your plea to attempted robbery in the first degree?
Q: To burglary in the first degree?
The court then accepted pleas to both crimes and sentenced for both crimes.
Oestreich now appeals his conviction for burglary. He does not dispute that the trial court acquired jurisdiction to adjudicate the burglary count when, on September 22, the State filed its original information charging both robbery and burglary. *fn3 He claims, however, that the trial court lost jurisdiction to adjudicate the burglary count when, on November 17, the State filed a first amended information charging robbery only. Accordingly, he says, his conviction for burglary must be vacated.
The general rule is that an amended information supersedes the original. *fn4 An exception exists, however, when a defendant procures the filing of an amended information in order to facilitate a plea bargain, but then fails to plead as agreed. *fn5 Thus, in State v. Johansen, *fn6 the original information charged second degree murder. On the second day of trial, the defendant offered to plead guilty to manslaughter. Responding to that offer, the prosecutor filed an amended information charging manslaughter. After the amended information was filed, the defendant declined to plead. The State then moved to withdraw the amended information, ...