Opinion ID: 1988537
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: specific performance of the plea bargain

Text: Plea bargains are agreements between the state and a criminal defendant in which the defendant pleads guilty or nolo contendere in exchange for the prosecutor's recommendation of a reduced sentence to the judge. Each party to the agreement benefits. The state benefits by saving the state court time and money and sometimes, as in this case, by obtaining valuable evidence against codefendants. The criminal defendant benefits by receiving a more lenient sentence than if he were sentenced following a trial and conviction. The disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused has become an essential part of the administration of criminal justice and is highly desirable   . State v. Freeman, 115 R.I. 523, 531, 351 A.2d 824, 828 (1976); see Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 751-52, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 1471, 25 L.Ed.2d 747, 758-59 (1970). In this case a valid plea agreement was reached. The state agreed to recommend a sentence of twenty-five years with fifteen years suspended, fifteen years probation, and ten years to serve, as well as to provide protection for defendant, his girlfriend, and their son. The state made this agreement contingent upon defendant's testifying truthfully against his codefendants. The defendant asserts that the state breached this plea agreement by failing properly to protect his girlfriend and his son and that, therefore, he is entitled to have the specific terms of the agreement enforced by this court. The defendant claims that his refusal to testify occurred after the state had already breached the agreement. In denying defendant's motion for specific performance, the trial justice found that there was a plea agreement between the state and defendant. This agreement was breached by defendant when he refused to testify at Estrada's second trial and when he recanted his prior testimony at Estrada's hearing on a motion for a new trial. Further, he found that the protection of defendant's family was not a major concern of defendant. Also the court noted that neither Caroline Mangum nor the defendant objected to the protection given to Ms. Mangum and her son prior to defendant's breach of the agreement. Specific performance is an equitable remedy of the court. The grant of [specific performance] is not a matter of right, but rests in the sound discretion of the trial justice. It is well established that the party who wishes to avail himself of the unique remedy of specific performance must show that he was ready, able and willing to perform his part of the contract. Jakober v. E.M. Loew's Capitol Theatre, Inc., 107 R.I. 104, 114, 265 A.2d 429, 435 (1970). [This court] shall not disturb a decision of a trial justice made in the exercise of a discretionary power unless it clearly appears that such discretion has been abused or improperly exercised. State v. Babbitt, 457 A.2d 1049, 1052 (R.I. 1983). Further, a trial justice may refuse to grant specific performance if a substantial part of the agreed exchange for the performance to be compelled is unperformed and its performance is not secured to the satisfaction of the court. Restatement (Second) Contracts § 363 (1981). The trial justice acted well within his discretion in denying defendant's motion for specific performance of the plea bargain. The defendant's actions indicated that he was unwilling to perform his part of the agreement. Malone was to testify truthfully against his codefendants. He breached his agreement with the state. At Estrada's second trial Malone refused to testify, knowing that his agreement with the state was contingent upon his truthful testimony. Other evidence of defendant's failure to testify truthfully includes his inconsistent statements at hearings and trials and his attempt to recant his prior statements at Estrada's hearing on a motion for a new trial. These actions further indicate defendant's unwillingness to perform his part of the agreement, thereby breaching his agreement with the state. The facts of this case are similar to the facts in a 1987 decision of the United States Supreme Court called Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1, 107 S.Ct. 2680, 97 L.Ed.2d 1 (1987). In Adamson the defendant entered into a plea agreement with the state to testify against his codefendants. After the codefendants' convictions the defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. The codefendants' convictions were subsequently reversed by the Arizona Supreme Court and remanded for retrial. At the codefendants' retrial the defendant refused to testify, claiming that his obligations under the plea agreement terminated when he was sentenced. The Supreme Court held that the subsequent vacated second-degree murder conviction and the reinstatement of the original charges by the state did not violate the double jeopardy clause because the defendant had breached the plea agreement. The Court found that the defendant understood the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences if he were found to be in breach of the agreement. Id. at 11-12, 107 S.Ct. at 2687, 97 L.Ed.2d at 12-13. The Court reasoned that [t]he State did not force the breach; respondent chose, perhaps for strategic reasons or as a gamble, to advance an interpretation of the agreement that proved erroneous. And, there is no indication that respondent did not fully understand the potential seriousness of the position he adopted. Id. at 11, 107 S.Ct. at 2686, 97 L.Ed.2d at 13. Although a double jeopardy violation is not raised on this appeal, the Supreme Court's discussion of Adamson's breach of the plea agreement is analogous to the pending matter. In this case the record indicates that Malone understood the terms of the plea agreement and the consequences if he were found to be in breach of the agreement. It was Malone's choice to breach the agreement with the state. The defendant also contends that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated by the state's withdrawal because all his previous self-incriminating statements were used to convict him at trial. The bargain between the state and Malone was a contingent plea agreement. The state's sentence recommendation was contingent upon defendant's truthful testimony against his codefendants. The state may call off the bargain if a defendant breaches the agreement. Malone's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated. As a witness and a defendant, Malone was warned of the possible consequences of his testifying. Prior to entering a plea, Malone's rights remained intact and were not violated when the bargain was revoked in response to his actions. The defendant was repeatedly informed of his Miranda rights prior to his giving any incriminating statements. Also Malone was fully represented by counsel at the time of his statements. The record contains no evidence that the state falsely induced Malone's statements although the record does indicate that Malone attempted to use his testimony to manipulate the state into giving him a sweeter deal than that to which he had agreed.