Opinion ID: 2640546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Welfare Fraud Plea Agreement

Text: [¶ 7] Fernandez claims that the State breached the plea agreement in the welfare fraud case when it argued at the consolidated sentencing hearing for a term of incarceration in the cocaine case. When reviewing breaches of plea agreements, we apply a two-part test. We (1) examine the nature of the promise; and (2) evaluate the promise in light of the defendant's reasonable understanding of the promise at the time the plea was entered. Schade v. State, 2002 WY 133, ¶ 5, 53 P.3d 551, 554 (Wyo. 2002). Because we have not been presented with plea agreements reduced to writing, we must look to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change of plea hearing to determine the terms of the agreement. Ford, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d at 411. [¶ 8] The express terms of the plea agreement in the welfare fraud case are not at issue here. At the change of plea hearing, counsel for Fernandez detailed both the nature of the promise and Fernandez's understanding of the plea agreement: [Defense counsel]: . . . In exchange for Ms. Fernandez's pleading guilty to three of the five counts charged in the information, the district attorney's office has agreed to recommend a three- to five-year suspended sentence with five years of probation with a suggestion that the Court end probation earlier when restitution is paid in full prior to the end of the five years. The restitution amount would be stipulated to [be] $6,500. . . . . There are other charges that are pending before another judge and that this does not have anything to do with that. An additional agreement is that the suggestion of a three- to five-year suspended sentence as to all counts would be concurrent both as to the suspended portion and as to the period of probation and that's as to this case only. I believe that's the total of the plea agreement. [Prosecutor]: (Nodded head.) THE COURT: Is that your understanding also, Ms. Fernandez? [Fernandez]: Yes, it is, Your Honor. [¶ 9] The issue here is whether the State complied with the undisputed terms of this agreement. At the consolidated sentencing hearing for both the welfare fraud and the cocaine cases, the State characterized the agreement as follows: [Prosecutor]: . . . [T]he agreement as outlined was to recommend probation on this offense to give her an opportunity to pay the restitution that would be due and owing. The agreement was entered into and brought before this Court with the understanding that the drug cases were still outstanding and would most likely result in a Women's Center incarceration for the time while the welfare fraud was specifically to be addressed on the record to that case only  [¶ 10] Defense counsel objected to this statement and later explained: [Defense Counsel]: My objection, Your Honor, I just want to make it clear before I start. My objection to [the prosecutor's] comments, I believe her comments regarding the welfare fraud case, those were to be suspended based on an understanding that she was to get a sentence at the penitentiary is not true and is not reflected in the record, but I have not read it today. My understanding is that she may have been contemplating, but that does not mean that's part of the agreement. And my guess is that is what she was contemplating, but I believe those comments are inappropriate. [¶ 11] Fernandez claims that, by stating that the drug cases were still outstanding and would most likely result in a Women's Center incarceration, the State breached the plea agreement reached in the welfare fraud case. She contends that the State was representing to the district court that, as part of the plea agreement in the welfare fraud case, Fernandez had agreed to accept a term of incarceration in the cocaine case. After reviewing the transcripts from sentencing and the record as a whole, we are satisfied that the welfare fraud plea agreement was not breached. [¶ 12] The prosecutor's statement did not violate the plea agreement. The State clearly represented to the district court that the welfare fraud plea agreement was specifically to be addressed on the record to that case only. Nonetheless, Fernandez claims that the State impermissibly argued that incarceration was contemplated in the cocaine case and that Fernandez had agreed to such incarceration. At sentencing, the State and Fernandez engaged in a lengthy argument about what was and was not contemplated in the welfare fraud plea agreement and whether Fernandez had agreed to incarceration as part of that agreement. Throughout this discussion, however, the State was careful to clarify that the plea agreement was unrelated to any sentencing recommendation in the cocaine case: [Prosecutor]: . . . I want the record to be very clear that at the change of plea hearing on the welfare fraud case that was before this Court at that time, [defense counsel] stated on two different occasions acknowledgement that the agreement in that case only had to do with the welfare fraud and there were other charges pending in front of another Court and that we weren't going to discuss those. [¶ 13] The district court, moreover, understood from the discussion at sentencing that the plea agreement did not include, nor was the prosecutor claiming that it included, any agreement regarding the cocaine charges: THE COURT: Here's the way I understand the plea agreement: It was three to five, suspended, on the welfare fraud. . . . With regards to the cocaine charges, that's all up in the air that there was no agreement with regards to that. I think [defense counsel's] point was the probation in this case, the welfare fraud wasn't agreed to under a contemplation, under agreement, that it's okay we'll take probation on this because we're going to get jail on the cocaine  it's all up in the air with regards to what is going to happen on the cocaine charges. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 14] The State performed its part of the plea agreement by recommending suspended forty-two month to five year sentences to be served concurrently, with five years probation. The State's argument for a term of incarceration in the cocaine case did not breach that agreement because, as the State made clear and the district court understood, the plea agreement in the welfare fraud case did not include any agreement in the cocaine case. It is true that some confusion was created by the prosecutor's saying that the agreement was entered into and brought before this Court with the understanding that the drug cases were still outstanding and would most likely result in a Women's Center incarceration. (Emphasis added.) One definition of understanding is, after all, agreement. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1289 (10th ed.1999). However, in the ensuing discussion, the prosecutor made it clear that such an understanding was not part of the agreement. Accordingly, we find that the State did not breach the terms of the welfare fraud plea agreement and, therefore, affirm the judgment and sentence in Case No. 04-214.