FILED 

Jan. 14,2016 

In the Office of the Clerk of Court 


W A State Cou rt of Appeals, Division III 


IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON 


DIVISION THREE 


STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) 

) No. 32717-5-111 

Respondent, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) UNPUBLISHED OPINION 

GUILLERMO GOMEZ, ) 

) 

Appellant. ) 

LAWRENCE-BERREY, J. - Guillermo Gomez pleaded guilty to second degree 

burglary and second degree theft. He challenges the voluntariness ofhis plea in light of 

the State's alleged breach ofthe plea agreement when the prosecutor argued for a higher 

offender score during sentencing than agreed to by the parties. The State acknowledges 

an offender score miscalculation, but argues the plea was voluntary. Because the State 

breached the plea agreement by undercutting the agreed sentencing recommendation, we 

remand with instructions to permit Mr. Gomez to elect whether to withdraw his guilty 

plea or seek specific performance. Based on this disposition; the miscalculated offender 

score issue is moot. 
No. 32717-5-111 

State v. Gomez 

FACTS 

The State charged Mr. Gomez with second degree burglary, second degree theft, 

third degree malicious mischief, second degree vehicle prowling, and third degree theft, 

all occurring in Kittitas County. Mr. Gomez agreed to plead guilty to second degree 

burglary and second degree theft in exchange for the other three charges being dismissed. 

The plea agreement showed an offender score of one for each offense and a 

sentencing range of 9-12 months on the burglary charge and 3-8 months on the theft 

charge. The agreement also noted that Mr. Gomez had two current Yakima County 

charges against him that "occurred prior to the events in this case & thus should not count 

in present offender score." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 4. The State agreed to recommend 

concurrent sentencing with the Yakima convictions. 

Mr. Gomez pleaded guilty in Yakima County to residential burglary and 

intimidating a witness. The next day, the Kittitas County court accepted Mr. Gomez's 

guilty plea to the second degree burglary and second degree theft charges and scheduled 

sentencing for the following Monday. 

At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor argued the offender score on the plea 

agreement was incorrect and should be "one higher" because Mr. Gomez previously 

2 

No. 32717-5-111 

State v. Gomez 

"pled in Yakima." Report of Proceedings (RP) (June 9,2014) at 3. Mr. Gomez objected1 

and the matter was continued to sort out the offender score discrepancy. 

The State argued Mr. Gomez was aware of the possibility ofa higher offender 

score if the Yakima convictions went first. Defense counsel countered that he did not 

remember the discussion and "certainly did not communicate ... it to [Mr. Gomez]." RP 

(June 13,2014) at 11. 

Ultimately, the sentencing court included the Yakima convictions in calculating 

Mr. Gomez's offender score and included a 2012 harassment conviction, which the court 

incorrectly counted as a felony.2 Based on an offender score of five, the court sentenced 

Mr. Gomez to 17 months for the second degree burglary conviction and 12 months for 

the second degree theft conviction. The sentences were run concurrent with each other 

and the Yakima convictions. Mr. Gomez appeals. 

ANALYSIS 

The issue is whether the State breached the parties' plea agreement by 

recommending a sentence higher than that agreed by the parties. 

Plea agreements are contracts; therefore, issues regarding the interpretation of a 

plea agreement are questions of law and are reviewed de novo. State v. Bisson, 156 

I Appellate counsel notes in his opening brief that his client did not object below, 

but our record clearly shows Mr. Gomez opposed the higher offender score calculation, 

which resulted in a continuance of the sentencing hearing. 

2 The State concedes the error. 

3 

No. 32717-5-III 

State v. Gomez 

Wn.2d 507, 517, 130 P.3d 820 (2006). The State has a contractual duty of good faith, 

requiring that it not undercut the terms ofthe agreement, either explicitly or implicitly, by 

conduct evidencing intent to circumvent the terms of the plea agreement. State v. Jerde, 

93 Wn. App. 774, 780, 970 P.2d 781 (1999). In addition to contract principles binding 

the parties to the agreement, constitutional due process "requires a prosecutor to adhere to 

the terms of the agreement" by recommending the agreed on sentence. In re Pers. 

Restraint alLard, 152 Wn.2d 182, 189,94 P.3d 952 (2004). 

Moreover, a guilty plea is involuntary and must be withdrawn when the defendant 

has been incorrectly advised ofthe offender score and accompanying standard range. 

State v. Mendoza, 157 Wn.2d 582,589-91, 141 P.3d 49 (2006). A defendant, however, 

may waive this right ifhe or she "was clearly informed before sentencing that the 

correctly calculated offender score rendered the actual standard range lower than had 

been anticipated at the time ofthe guilty plea." Id. at 592 (emphasis added). The range 

here was higher than anticipated. 

In this case, after Mr. Gomez pleaded guilty, the prosecutor argued for a higher 

offender score than listed on the plea agreement based on the Yakima convictions even 

though the plea agreement specifically stated that the Yakima charges "should not count 

in present offender score." CP at 4. Moreover, defense counsel acknowledged he did not 

communicate to Mr. Gomez the possibility of the Yakima charges increasing his offender 

score. Under Lord, 152 Wn.2d at 189, the prosecutor was required "to adhere to the 

4 

No. 32717-5-III 

State v. Gomez 

terms ofthe agreement" by recommending the agreed on sentence; the prosecutor failed 

to do so. Also problematic is the voluntariness of the plea. In State v. Walsh, 143 Wn.2d 

1, 4, 17 P .3d 591 (2001), our Supreme Court held that a plea agreement was not 

voluntary where the prosecutor agreed to recommend the low-end of a standard range 

sentence, but the plea agreement contained a mistaken standard range. The court held, 

"[Mr.] Walsh has established that his guilty plea was involuntary based upon the mutual 

mistake about the standard range sentence." [d. at 9. The court further held, "Where a 

plea agreement is based on misinformation, as in this case, generally the defendant may 

choose specific enforcement ofthe agreement or withdrawal ofthe guilty plea." [d. 

"When the prosecutor breaches a plea agreement, the appropriate remedy is to 

remand for the defendant to choose whether to withdraw the guilty plea or specifically 

enforce the State's agreement." State v. Jerde, 93 Wn. App. 774, 782-83, 970 P.2d 781 

(1999). '" [T]he defendant's choice of remedy controls, unless there are compelling 

reasons not to allow that remedy.'" [d. (quoting State v. Miller, 110 Wn.2d 528, 535, 

756 P.2d 122 (1988)). 

Based on the above, the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, rendering Mr. 

Gomez's plea involuntary. The appropriate remedy is to reverse and remand for Mr. 

Gomez to elect whether to withdraw his guilty plea or specifically enforce the State's 

agreement. 

5 

No. 32717-5-III 

State v. Gomez 

Reversed and remanded. 

A majority ofthe panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the 

Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to 

RCW 2.06.040. 

j WE CONCUR: 

Fearin~q=l . 


6