Opinion ID: 2631802
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether Lopes's Pleas Were Entirely Conditional

Text: ¶ 13 The first issue before us is whether Lopes's pleas to murder, with sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and group criminal activity, were entirely conditioned on the outcome of Lopes I. Lopes contends that these pleas were, in fact, conditional and that the reason he raised State v. Sery, 758 P.2d 935 (Utah Ct.App.1988), in relation to only the gang enhancement portion of the plea-taking, was simply to ensure that this issue was preserved for appeal. ¶ 14 Our analysis of this contention centers on the colloquy that occurred when Lopes changed his plea to guilty. During that colloquy, the trial court asked Lopes how he pleaded to the charge of murder, with sentencing enhancements for use of a dangerous weapon and group criminal activity. Before Lopes could respond, his trial counsel stated, Your Honor, could you take that a piece at a time if you don't mind. Because I've got to preserve [ Sery ] exactly. The trial court agreed to do so, and Lopes pleaded guilty to the charge of murder as follows: The Court: As to Count One, criminal homicide murder, a first degree felony, Mr. Mierra, excuse me, Mr. Lopes, having caused the death of Mr. Mierra. How do you plead, sir? Mr. Lopes: I plead guilty to the last alternative, under the last alternative. The Court: As to evidencing depraved indifference to human life that you engaged in conduct which created a grave risk of death of another and thereby caused the death of Joey Mierra? Mr. Lopes: Yes. The Court: All right. I do find, Mr. Lopes, that your plea is knowingly and voluntarily made. I'll therefore receive it and enter it as a conviction at this time. The trial court then asked Lopes's trial counsel how he wished to proceed, and the following colloquy ensued: Defense: Your Honor, we wish to enter [a Sery ] plea relative to the gang enhancement provision under 76-3-203.1. If you want to inquire about this plea, I would advise Cameron Lopes to say guilty under State v. [Sery ] because we are specifically meaning to appeal the Court's ruling on the constitutionality of the gang enhancement provision. Again, our problem is, Judge, that the legislature has taken a fact finding out of the hands of the jury and submitted it to the Court unconstitutionally. The Court: All right. As to the gang enhancement statute found at 76-3-203.1, as to that enhancement, Mr. Lopes, how do you plead? Mr. Lopes: Guilty under State v. [Sery ]. After entering this Sery plea, Lopes then entered his plea to the weapons enhancement: The Court: All right. And as to the firearm enhancement, Mr. Lopes, how do you plead? Mr. Lopes: Guilty as a party to the offense. The Court: All right. I do find that your plea of guilty to all of the above is knowingly and voluntarily made. I'll, therefore, enter them as a conviction at this time. As we read the colloquy, there is no suggestion that Lopes made each plea conditional while preserving only the gang enhancement issue for appeal. Rather, he entered a conditional plea only as to the gang enhancement portion of the crime. By entering his pleas in this form, Lopes was able to obtain an agreement from the State to dismiss pending charges against him for discharge of a firearm at a person or building, tampering with evidence, and aggravated arson. We conclude Lopes intended only his plea to the group criminal activity portion of the charge to be conditional.