Clement v. Mills

A post-conviction settlement agreement that affects petitioner’s sentences in two separate cases will be enforced when the defendant agrees to the settlement agreement on the record, even though the defendant claimed there was no “meeting of the minds” when he misunderstood the agreement at the hearing.

In a post-conviction relief hearing, petitioner and defendant discussed a settlement between the parties in front of the court. On the record, petitioner explained the stipulated agreement, which reduced one charge and made the sentence run concurrently with another sentence in the same case. Additionally, petitioner explained that the parties stipulated that petitioner’s sentence in a separate case ought to run concurrently with the first sentence. Defendant agreed on the record. Subsequently, defendant did not prepare an amended judgment and petitioner filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. The Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that there was no “meeting of the minds” between the parties. The Court stated that under the objective theory of contracts there was no evidence to support the post-conviction trial court’s implied finding that the parties did not enter into a binding agreement on the record. Reversed and remanded.