The state made a plea deal, then broke it. A court just said no.

Alaska made a deal, then broke it — and an appeals court just said the state can't do that.

A Point Hope man will be resentenced because a substitute prosecutor, standing in for the one who negotiated his plea agreement, showed up and argued for the maximum sentence instead of the deal both sides had struck.

Nick Frankson had pleaded guilty to assault charges under an agreement calling for a 720-day sentence. But at his hearing, the prosecutor who'd made that deal didn't appear. The replacement pushed for the maximum, and the judge sentenced Frankson to more than five years — far above the agreed term. The Court of Appeals drew a firm line: a plea agreement binds the State, not just the individual prosecutor who signed it. Frankson had already given up his right to trial in reliance on that promise, so the state was bound to keep it.

The court found a second problem, too. After the judge rejected the plea deal as too lenient, no one ever personally asked Frankson the question the law requires — whether he wanted to stick with his guilty pleas or take them back. He was left confused about whether the deal still stood, and his later request to withdraw his pleas went unanswered.

Now he'll be resentenced before a different judge, and this time the prosecutor has to support the 720-day deal. If the new judge again finds it too lenient, the court must ask Frankson directly whether he wants to withdraw his pleas — a choice that, if he takes it, could put all the original charges back on the table.