An armed carjacking defendant disputed the description of the offense presented in a plea agreement he had already signed in front of DC Superior Court Judge Robert Salerno on June 23.
Dominick Carter, 22, is charged with armed carjacking, two counts of robbery while armed, and three counts of possession of a firearm during a crime of violence for his alleged involvement in an incident at the 1600 block of W Street, SE, on Jan. 21, 2025.
The defendant apparently agreed to plead guilty to armed carjacking and carrying a pistol without a license, in exchange for the prosecution dropping all other charges and not pursuing an indictment with additional charges related to the incident.
According to the prosecutors, if the case went to trial they would prove that two individuals went to Carter to buy marijuana. When they arrived, Carter allegedly approached their car window with a handgun, forced them into an apartment, and robbed them at gunpoint. Then, he reportedly directed them back to their car, drove to the Anacostia Metro station, dropped them off, and drove away with the victims’ car.
Judge Salerno attempted to confirm that Carter knowingly and voluntarily agreed to enter into his plea deal. After the prosecutor read the details of the offense, Judge Salerno asked Carter if he found the facts to be true, to which Carter replied, “No.” Carter did not state his exact disagreement with the prosecutors’ description of the offense.
Judge Salerno replied, “I guess the question is: why did you sign it?”
Carter consulted his attorney, Theodore Shaw, and then told Judge Salerno, “My bad, it’s a hard decision.” He revised his answer and momentarily agreed that the summary was accurate.
Judge Salerno briefly praised Carter for thoroughly reviewing all the paperwork rather than blindly accepting the plea agreement.
The prosecution reiterated the evidence, arguing they would have led a jury to find Carter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
When Judge Salerno asked Carter if the prosecution’s recount of the incident was true, he responded, “No.”
Salerno noted that this was the second time Carter contested the basis of the agreement and immediately said they needed to “halt” the hearing until the defendant’s words in court matched his signature out of court.
Parties are scheduled to reconvene on June 29.
