Wash. Court of Appeals published opinion — 387844_pub.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,796 chars

our Supreme Court accepted the State’s petition for review. Id.

In Chambers, our high court reviewed the history of the plea deal for the

November crimes. Id. at 581-84. It noted that the 240-month consecutive sentence for

the November crimes was a global plea deal in which the State agreed to allow the

defendant to seek the low end of a standard range sentence for one of the February

crimes. Id. at 581. The Chambers court applied contract law in deciding whether the

defendant’s sentence for the November crimes was severable from the sentence for the

February 1999 crimes: “Whether a contract is divisible or indivisible is dependent upon

the intent of the parties. We look only to objective manifestations of intent, not

unexpressed subjective intent.” Id. at 580-81 (citation omitted). The court concluded that

the 240-month consecutive sentence was a global agreement, not divisible from the

withdrawn guilty plea for the February crimes, and denied the defendant’s request that he

be resentenced for his November crimes. Id. at 583.

8
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 38784-4-III
Elgiadi v. Wash. State Univ.

Here, the objective manifestations of the parties establish that settlement was

dependent upon the no-hire provision. The paragraph containing that provision states that

the State “required this paragraph as a material provision,” and its breach would

“irreparably harm[ ]” the State. CP at 30. Mr. Elgiadi, with the benefit of counsel, signed

the agreement. In return, the State paid him $295,000. Because the State’s assent for

paying Mr. Elgiadi $295,000 was dependent on him accepting the no-rehire provision, the

provision is not severable. We conclude, if Mr. Elgiadi succeeds in invalidating the no-