Opinion ID: 1822128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Was Termination Fundamentally Unfair to Defendant?

Text: Defendant's primary contention is that the prosecution unfairly terminated his participation in the pretrial diversion program without adequate cause. The trial court addressed that factual question and found that the termination had not been arbitrary but was reasonable in view of defendant's failure to perform his own obligations under the agreement. We have undertaken a careful de novo review of the evidence because defendant has asserted constitutional due process rights. See State v. Eubanks, 355 N.W.2d 57, 58 (Iowa 1984); State v. Oliver, 341 N.W.2d 25, 28 (Iowa 1983). We come to the same conclusion as the trial court. The written agreement which defendant signed upon entry into the program committed him to perform several quite specific obligations as well as several that were general in nature. Defendant agreed that he would have no contact with his wife and children and later agreed that he would have no contact with another woman who was participating in a treatment program and her children. The record shows, however, that he did violate those agreements by having contact with several of those persons. Defendant was to undertake a daily search for employment, but he did not do so. Defendant agreed to comply with the rules of the mental health facility that administered the program and promised to cooperate in good faith with the treatment aspect of this program. He also acknowledged that program officials could place additional requirements upon him. Again, the record supports the trial court's findings that defendant did not cooperate in good faith with his counselor and did not carry through genuinely on recommendations made to him by the personnel at the mental health facility. He misrepresented to staff personnel what activities he was performing, and he also misstated to some of his counselors what others had said to him during the course of the treatment. The authorities cited by defendant do not support his contention that the State's action in this case violated fundamental notions of fairness. Defendant asks us to adopt the approach taken by the Washington Supreme Court in a recent case concerning a similar pretrial diversion agreement, State v. Marino, 100 Wash.2d 719, 674 P.2d 171 (1984). The Marino court said that a court reviewing termination of such an agreement must make an independent determination of the reasonableness of the action taken by the state, placing the burden of proof on the state to show that it has acted reasonably. Id. at 725, 674 P.2d at 174-75. The holding of Marino, however, was that the trial court properly found from the evidence that the prosecutor's decision to terminate was reasonable in light of the facts ascertainable from the evidence. Id. at 726-27, 674 P.2d at 175-76. The evidence there showed that the defendant had repeatedly failed to keep counseling appointments and also had failed to arrange for resumption of regular counseling. The court concluded: The accused will be afforded full protection of his bargain only if factual disputes are resolved and review of the prosecutor's discretion is based on the evidence. Because the procedure followed by the trial court substantially satisfies the criteria we adopt for termination of pretrial diversion agreements, we find that appellant has not been denied due process. Id. at 727, 674 P.2d at 176. Without deciding whether the analysis suggested in Marino must be invoked whenever a defendant contends that the prosecution has not fulfilled its obligations under a plea bargain, we find that such an analysis does not yield a result favorable to defendant in this case. Here, as in Marino, the evidence satisfactorily establishes that the prosecution had adequate cause for terminating defendant from the program. Defendant contends that the trial court improperly placed on him the burden of proving that the State had acted unreasonably in terminating him from the program. We need not decide whether the State or the defendant should have had the burden of proof on that issue, because the trial court in its ruling cited the Marino case and followed its procedural guidelines which placed the burden on the State. Id. at 725, 674 P.2d at 175. Regardless which party had the burden of proof on the issue, the evidence clearly establishes that defendant was properly terminated from the program because he had violated obligations which the pretrial diversion agreement cast upon him.