Amendment 113, which established the structure of discretion in punishment, allows the court to deviate from the scope of punishment in two cases: for rehabilitative considerations and in light of the need to protect the public. On the face of it, it could have been argued that it was not possible to deviate from the penalty area following a plea bargain. However, as the legislative history shows, in parallel with the bill in Amendment 113, a government bill on plea bargains was also discussed (the Criminal Procedure Bill (Amendment No. 65) (Plea Bargain), 5770-2010, Government Bill 536), and it was clear that this proposal would regulate the implications of a plea bargain on the sentence. However, this bill was not promoted at the end of the day (for an analysis of the bill, see: Yaniv, Plea Bargains; Doron Teichman, "The Structuring of Sentencing Discretion: The Economic Perspective," Iyunei Mishpat Lev, 649, 676 (2011), and Gershon Gontovnik, "Plea Bargains on Appeal that Cancel the Normative Determinations of the Trial Court: Stopping the Potential for Erosion," Laws 6, 11 (2014).
In Crim. Crim. 512/13 Anonymous v. M.I. (published in Nevo, 2013) hereinafter: the Late Certain Matter or the Matter of the Construction of the Sentence in the Plea Bargains), it was held that where a plea bargain was presented to the court regarding the sentence, it must examine the plea bargain that meets the balancing test set by the court in the extended Certain case, and if so, it must act in accordance with the plea bargain even if the proposed punishment deviates from the appropriate penalty range. The Honorable Judge, currently the Deputy President, Hanan Meltzer, ruled that the range of punishment determined by the court is not dependent on the range of punishment agreed upon by the parties, and differs from it both in that the range of punishment in the plea bargain is determined by the parties, as opposed to the range of punishment determined by the court, and mainly in that in essence, the range of punishment proposed in a plea bargain reflects the interests of both parties, and the range of punishment determined by the court reflects a normative determination of the proper balance in society's eyes between all the relevant considerations according to the format set by law.