TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
PROBLEM: comply with those conditions. See § 32A-2-13(G). In addition, Gerald received oral notification from the children’s court at his plea hearing that detention would result from failure to comply with certain grade court conditions. Gerald’s counsel and mother were present at the plea hearing. Gerald repeatedly told the court that he understood the conditions. {38} Furthermore, when Gerald signed the plea agreement and grade court order, he received the considerable benefit of being released into the community. Gerald now seeks to be relieved of the conditions of release while leaving the rest of the plea agreement intact. Having received the benefit of the plea, Gerald may not now complain that the conditions are invalid. Cf State v. Trujillo, 117 N.M. 769, 772, 877 P.2d 575, 578 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Herrera, 2001-NMCA-073, ¶25 (stating that 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that both parties to a plea bargain make various concessions and gain certain advantages during plea negotiations and underscoring that a criminal defendant having availed himself of the advantages of a plea agreement cannot welch on his part of the bargain internal quotation marks and citation omitted (B) holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense (C) recognizing that a voluntary and understanding guilty plea entered without the benefit of a plea bargain waives all nonjurisdictional defects that occurred before the entry of the plea (D) recognizing that a single guilty plea may embody a series of interrelated concessions between the parties and allows the defendant to withdraw the entire plea when one part of the agreement fails (E) holding defendant did not prove an enforceable agreement only that there was some discussion of a plea bargain

SOLUTION: holding that plea of guilty or nolo contendere is not rendered involuntary because it is a product of plea bargaining an accepted plea bargain must be recorded and court may accept a bargained plea to a lesser offense reasonably related to a charged offense

PROBLEM: 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 128 L.Ed.2d 229 (1994). In Landgraf, the Court noted that a statute only truly operates retroactively if applying it would “impair rights a party possessed when he acted, increase a party’s liability for past conduct, or impose new duties with respect to transactions already completed.” Id. 114 S.Ct. at 1505; see also RTC v. Ford Motor Credit Corp., 30 F.3d 1384, 1387-88 (11th Cir.1994)(analyzing retroactivity of lease repudiation damage limitation provision of FIRREA). Thus, like other courts that have analyzed similar FIRREA provisions, we must address prior banking law to determine whether application of the damage limitation provisions of § 1821(e)(3) would have the retroactive effect defined in Landgraf. See, e.g., Ford Motor Credit, 30 F.3d at 1388 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that, in the Crafts’ case, it 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the act is not retroactive (B) holding that firreas damage limitations for repudiation of leases worked no substantive change in the law and thus their application was not retroactive (C) holding retroactive application (D) holding no retroactive application (E) recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary

SOLUTION: holding that the act is not retroactive

PROBLEM: permitting defendant to evade his negotiated plea by filing a motion to mitigate would discourage the State from entering into future plea bargains with other defendants. See Swett, 772 So.2d at 52. Moreover, the trial court, pursuant to the plea agreement, did not have discretion over defendant’s sentence and, therefore, should have denied defendant’s motion to mitigate. See Arango v. State, 891 So.2d 1195, 1196 (Fla. 3d DCA 2005) (concluding that denial of a motion for extension of time to file a motion to mitigate was proper because the motion to mitigate would have been futile where the plea agreement imposed upon defendant a specific sentence and did not give the trial court any discretion over the length of the sentence); State v. Brooks, 890 So.2d 503, 505 (Fla. 2d DCA 2005) (<HOLDING>). We reverse the trial court’s order and remand 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient (B) holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss (C) holding that a trial court erred in granting a defendants motion to mitigate where the defendants original sentence was imposed pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement (D) holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment (E) holding that a trial court may rescind an order granting defendants motion for new trial within 75dayperiod allowed for ruling on the defendants motion

SOLUTION:
holding trial court erred in denying defendants motion for arrest of judgment where indictment was insufficient