Under the terms of Carr’s plea agreement, he pleaded guilty to carjacking and was sentenced to nine years in prison. The agreement provided that Carr would be released on his own recognizance, and if he met certain conditions, including appearing for resentencing and not violating any laws, the term would be reduced to 365 days to be served on weekends. (A Vargas waiver.) Prior to the sentencing date, Carr was arrested for a domestic violence offense. The trial court found that Carr violated the plea agreement and did not resentence him. It also denied Carr’s request to withdraw his guilty plea. On appeal, Carr contended that the finding that he violated the plea agreement should be reversed because he was not given sufficient notice concerning the alleged violation, and the trial court did not make sufficient findings to support the conclusion that he had violated the terms of the plea agreement. He also argued that under Blakely, the sentence had to be reversed because the trial court denied him a jury trial when it determined that he violated his Vargas waiver. The appellate court rejected the arguments and affirmed. The court provided sufficient notice of the terms of the Vargas waiver so that Carr could prepare a defense. He was notified in open court of the agreement and the consequences. His counsel’s readiness at the hearing showed that he had sufficient notice. Vargas does not require a court to make detailed written statements of reasons for finding a defendant in violation of a waiver. The Blakely issue was not cognizable on appeal because appellant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause and his attack was on the validity of the plea.