A legal rift over a December memo now has Circuit Judge Frank Vollor saying his actions have been misrepresented to the Supreme Court, District Attorney Gil Martin saying Vollor has exceeded his authority and the attorney general’s office calling the matter a waste of the court’s time.

At the core is a pending plea by drug defendant Patrick Rader, 33, charged with felony possession of marijuana.

His attorney, Jerry Campbell, asked Vollor to step aside, based on the memo, which says the court would no longer accept negotiated pleas of guilt in such cases that did not call for either a year in prison or entering the county’s drug court, which offers intensive supervision and rehabilitation.

Campbell wrote to the state’s high court that the memo amounted to prejudging a case in violation of judicial conduct rules.

Vollor’s response strongly disagreed and said his memo was being misrepresented to the higher court.

Martin’s position is that Vollor is trying to boost participation in drug court, an alternative program Vollor leads.

&#8220I think (he) tried to do our job as well as his own,” Martin said, adding that when his office offers a plea-deal offer it considers information including the person’s background, the charge, the strength of the case, statements of witnesses and conversations about the person with defense attorneys.

&#8220The only person who can get a suspended sentence is a first offender,” Martin said. &#8220Generally if the defender is youthful and it’s for a small amount, not for sale or distribution, we have offered a suspended sentence with supervised probation.”

While the memo could be read as a &#8220get tough” position, Martin says he doesn’t think that was the purpose.

&#8220I don’t think the memo was about lenient sentences,” Martin said. &#8220The memo was about putting people in drug court.”

In his response Vollor said there was a big difference between a negotiated plea of the type described in the memo and an open plea, which Rader was to enter.

Campbell disagreed, said Vollor was changing his position in his answer to the Supreme Court and insisted that Vollor is required to consider other sentencing options.

The Rader case was originally assigned to the other judge of the court, Isadore Patrick, who has announced no policy limiting sentencing options in drug-possession cases.

Rader pleaded guilty to Patrick, but before testimony could be heard on his sentencing Patrick recused himself from the case because the judge said trusted sources had told him Rader had been telling people that Rader had paid Patrick in exchange for a lenient sentence.

The case assignment then fell to Vollor.

Writing for Attorney General Jim Hood, Assistant Attorney General Charles W. Maris Jr. said in a nine-page response released this morning that if Campbell’s arguments were correct, &#8220No judge in the state could try this case and a defendant could veto any judge he didn’t like.” It further says that &#8220there is no requirement that two judges – even in the same district – give identical sentences.” It also says that Vollor’s consideration of community concerns is, contrary to Campbell’s argument, not only not improper but in fact required by law.

Maris argues that given Rader’s prior plea negotiations and discussion with Patrick about a potential sentence for him, Rader &#8220has no standing to complain about the memoranda in any event. In other words, this whole matter is, in the state’s view, a monumental waste of this court’s time.”

There was no indication when the Supreme Court might rule.