Opinion ID: 1678216
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Package Plea Agreement

Text: Howell further contends that she was coerced into pleading guilty due to the nature of the package plea agreement. The plea agreement provided that if Howell and her five co-defendants entered guilty pleas, the State would not seek the death penalty against the four adult co-defendants. Because Howell was a juvenile at the time of the offenses, she was not subject to the death penalty. See Tenn.Code Ann. § 37-1-134(a)(1) (1996). A package deal or wired plea agreement exists where the prosecution conditions the acceptance of a plea agreement on a co-defendant's willingness to accept a plea agreement. United States v. Hodge, 412 F.3d 479, 489 (3d Cir.2005); United States v. Gamble, 327 F.3d 662, 664 n. 4 (8th Cir.2003). The United States Supreme Court has reserved judgment on the constitutional implications of package plea agreements. See Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 364 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 663, 54 L.Ed.2d 604 (1978). With regard to plea bargaining in general, however, the United States Supreme Court has stated that [d]efendants advised by competent counsel and protected by other procedural safeguards are presumptively capable of intelligent choice in response to prosecutorial persuasion, and unlikely to be driven to false self-condemnation. Id. at 363, 98 S.Ct. 663. The acceptance of the legitimacy of plea bargaining implies the rejection of any idea that a guilty plea is involuntary as the end result of the plea bargaining process. Id. Although confronting a defendant with the risk of more severe punishment may effectively discourage a defendant from asserting his trial rights, the imposition of these difficult choices upon a defendant is `inevitable' and `permissible' in a `legitimate system which tolerates and encourages the negotiation of pleas.' Id. at 364, 98 S.Ct. 663 (quoting Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 31, 93 S.Ct. 1977, 36 L.Ed.2d 714 (1973)). The issue before this Court is whether the practice of offering package pleas is so coercive that it renders the resulting guilty plea involuntary. A practice that is coercive or renders a plea involuntary is one that creates improper pressure that likely would overbear the will of innocent people causing them to plead guilty. United States v. Pollard, 959 F.2d 1011, 1021 (D.C.Cir.1992). A guilty plea is rendered involuntary only by physical harm, threats of harassment, misrepresentation, or `promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor's business (e.g., bribes).' Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742, 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463, 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) (quoting Shelton v. United States, 246 F.2d 571, 572 n. 2 (5th Cir. 1957), (en banc) rev'd on confession of error on other grounds, 356 U.S. 26, 78 S.Ct. 563, 2 L.Ed.2d 579 (1958)). We do not believe that the nature of a package plea agreement is such that it is likely to overbear the will of an innocent person and cause the person to plead guilty. A guilty plea entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty may be valid. Id. at 755, 90 S.Ct. 1463. Even in circumstances in which a defendant enters a plea to avoid facing the death penalty but continues to maintain his innocence, the plea is valid as long as the record contains adequate evidence of guilt. See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25, 37-38, 91 S.Ct. 160, 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). We, like the Eighth Circuit, observe that `[s]ince a defendant's plea is not rendered involuntary because he enters it to save himself [from the death penalty], it is difficult to see why the law should not permit the defendant to negotiate a plea that confers a similar benefit on others.' United States v. Vest, 125 F.3d 676, 679 (8th Cir. 1997) (quoting United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738, 742 (2d Cir.1990)). Furthermore, the majority of jurisdictions that have addressed the issue have held that package plea agreements are not invalid per se. See, e.g., Hodge, 412 F.3d at 490; Vest, 125 F.3d at 679; Pollard, 959 F.2d at 1020-21; United States v. Marquez, 909 F.2d 738, 741-42 (2d Cir.1990); United States v. Wheat, 813 F.2d 1399, 1405 (9th Cir.1987); State v. Jaramillo, 152 Ariz. 394, 733 P.2d 279, 280-81 (1987); In re Ibarra, 34 Cal.3d 277, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d 980, 985 (1983); Stinson v. State, 839 So.2d 906, 908-09 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2003); State v. Bey, 270 Kan. 544, 17 P.3d 322, 331 (2001); Butala v. State, 664 N.W.2d 333, 339 (Minn.2003); People v. Fiumefreddo, 82 N.Y.2d 536, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d 646, 650 (1993); State v. Williams, 117 Wash.App. 390, 71 P.3d 686, 690-91 (2003). [9] We join these jurisdictions and hold that package plea agreements are not invalid per se. The United States Supreme Court, however, has recognized that package plea agreements might pose a greater danger of inducing a false guilty plea by skewing the assessment of the risks that a defendant must consider. Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 364 n. 8, 98 S.Ct. 663. A defendant may be pressured to plead guilty by a co-defendant who believes that he will get a better deal under the agreement. United States v. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir.2004). Package plea agreements also present an opportunity for a defendant to manipulate the system. A defendant who has obtained a benefit for a co-defendant may move to withdraw his own plea after the co-defendant has received the benefit. Id. at 8. As a result, certain safeguards should apply with regard to package plea agreements. In cases involving leniency toward a third party or a promise not to prosecute a third party, the prosecution must act in good faith. See, e.g., Gamble, 327 F.3d at 664; Miles v. Dorsey, 61 F.3d 1459, 1468 (10th Cir.1995); Politte v. United States, 852 F.2d 924, 929-30 (7th Cir.1988); Stinson, 839 So.2d at 909. The prosecution acts in good faith when it has probable cause to charge the third party at the time the prosecution offers leniency for the third party to the defendant or at the time the prosecution threatens the defendant with charging the third party. Miles, 61 F.3d at 1468; Stinson, 839 So.2d at 909. In the present case, the four adult co-defendants were indicted for the same offenses with which Howell was charged. See Politte, 852 F.2d at 929 (holding that a strong presumption of good faith exists when an indictment has been returned against a third party). The State also had evidence establishing several aggravating circumstances that would have supported the imposition of the death penalty against the four adult co-defendants. The trial court applied these aggravating circumstances in sentencing the co-defendants to life without parole. Once the State had probable cause to prosecute the adult co-defendants and seek the death penalty against them, the State was entitled to prosecute them fully or offer them leniency in exchange for the guilty pleas of Howell and her co-defendants. Accordingly, by offering not to seek the death penalty against the four adult co-defendants if Howell and her co-defendants agreed to plead guilty, the State was offering to refrain from taking action that it was legally authorized to take. See Miles, 61 F.3d at 1469. The nature and terms of the package plea agreement must be disclosed to the trial court prior to questioning the defendant at the plea hearing. See, e.g., Hodge, 412 F.3d at 490-91; Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d at 8; United States v. Abbott, 241 F.3d 29, 34 (1st Cir.2001); United States v. Caro, 997 F.2d 657, 659-60 (9th Cir.1993); Bey, 17 P.3d at 332; Williams, 71 P.3d at 691. When a defendant's plea rests on the prosecution's promise that a co-defendant will benefit, the promise is a material term of the plea agreement. Hodge, 412 F.3d at 490. Disclosure of these material terms presents the trial court with the opportunity to probe as deeply as necessary into the possibility that a defendant is entering a plea against his will so that his co-defendant will obtain leniency. Abbott, 241 F.3d at 34. The record in the present case adequately demonstrates that the trial court was aware of the nature of the plea agreement entered into by Howell and her co-defendants. An issue remains as to the extent of the questioning required by a trial court of a defendant who seeks to enter a guilty plea based on a package plea agreement. When the defendant seeks to enter a guilty plea as part of a package plea agreement, some jurisdictions require the trial court to make additional inquiries beyond those mandated by Boykin and by that jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jaramillo, 733 P.2d at 280-81; In re Ibarra, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d at 986-87; Butala, 664 N.W.2d at 339. These jurisdictions require the trial court to specifically inquire into the circumstances surrounding the package plea agreement. In re Ibarra, 193 Cal.Rptr. 538, 666 P.2d at 986. These circumstances include whether: 1) the inducement to plead was proper in that the prosecutor acted in good faith and had a reasonable case against the third party to whom leniency is promised; 2) there is a factual basis for the plea in terms of supportable evidence and proportionality of the sentence; 3) the nature and degree of coercion and psychological pressure upon the defendant indicate that the plea is involuntary; 4) the promise of leniency to another was a significant concern to the defendant in choosing to plead guilty; and 5) any other factor impermissibly influenced the defendant's plea. Id. at 986-87. We conclude, however, that the current procedures trial courts in Tennessee are required to follow in guilty plea hearings are sufficient to assess the voluntariness of a guilty plea entered as part of a package plea agreement. The majority of jurisdictions also have declined to mandate an additional inquiry. See, e.g., Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d at 8; United States v. Farley, 72 F.3d 158, 163-64 (D.C.Cir.1995); Fiumefreddo, 605 N.Y.S.2d 671, 626 N.E.2d at 651. Rather, the trial court must conduct the colloquy with special care, showing sensitivity to the issue of voluntariness. Hodge, 412 F.3d at 491; Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d at 8. Additional procedures are not mandated. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d at 8. Therefore, the existence of a package plea agreement is but one circumstance, in addition to those delineated in Blankenship, 858 S.W.2d at 904, a court may consider in determining whether a guilty plea was voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly entered. The trial court in the present case substantially complied with the federal and state mandates with regard to guilty pleas. See Neal, 810 S.W.2d at 137-38. The trial court questioned Howell and her co-defendants to determine if they had received any threats, pressure, or promises to plead guilty other than the promises contained in the plea agreements. Howell and her co-defendants stated that they had not. This question was broad enough to encompass not only the traditional types of coercion but the unique pressures from a co-defendant or family member that may arise in a package plea agreement. Mescual-Cruz, 387 F.3d at 9-10; cf. United States v. Martinez-Molina, 64 F.3d 719, 734 (1st Cir.1995) (holding that the trial court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the voluntariness of the package plea agreement when the court only asked the defendant whether he had been threatened or pressured by the prosecution). The trial court also asked Howell whether she was entering the guilty plea because she actually was guilty of the offenses, and Howell replied, Yes. The post-conviction court accredited defense counsel's testimony that Howell had stated, [W]hatever it took she wanted to sign off on the agreement. Defense counsel did not pressure Howell into pleading guilty. Defense counsel would not agree to the plea until he was certain that Howell fully understood what she was doing and that the plea was in Howell's best interest. The post-conviction court found that Howell never expressed reservations about the plea and that defense counsel never had cause to believe that Howell could not voluntarily, knowingly, and understandingly enter the plea. The post-conviction court found that Howell was motivated to enter the plea in part by her desire to save her four adult co-defendants from the death penalty. The record shows that Howell also was motivated by her desire to avoid the torment of a trial, particularly for her family, whom she requested exit the courtroom prior to her testimony at the sentencing hearing. In addition, defense counsel testified that Howell stated that she wanted a chance to be free from incarceration one day. The post-conviction court recognized that the evidence was overwhelming and horrible and that Howell deliberately and knowingly participated in every aspect of the killings. Howell aided in planning the events that led to the killings. She helped steal the guns that were used in the killings and the money that funded the trip. She was at the picnic table when the Lillelid family was kidnapped and observed the children as they cried. Howell was standing outside the van watching as the Lillelids were shot multiple times. She took no action to attempt to stop the killings. Howell participated in the escape, and items belonging to the Lillelid family were found on her person. Defense counsel reasonably believed that a jury would find Howell guilty of the charges, including the first degree murders, and impose the maximum sentences of life without parole. Defense counsel's belief that Howell's best chance of receiving a lesser sentence was through sentencing by the trial court was also reasonable. During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel presented substantial evidence in an attempt to achieve the minimum possible sentence for Howell. As a result of defense counsel's efforts, the trial court applied more mitigating factors to Howell than to any of her co-defendants. The trial court, nevertheless, imposed the maximum sentences of life without parole and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively. The validity of a plea, however, may not be collaterally attacked merely on the basis that the defendant made, in retrospect, what turned out to be a poor deal. Bradshaw v. Stumpf, 545 U.S. 175, 125 S.Ct. 2398, 2407, 162 L.Ed.2d 143 (2005). Any shortcomings of Howell's plea agreement cast doubt on the validity of her guilty plea only if it is demonstrated either that Howell agreed to the unfavorable plea based on the constitutionally defective advice of counsel or that Howell could not have understood the terms of the plea agreement. See id. We are unable to conclude that either instance occurred in this case. Accordingly, we hold that Howell knowingly, voluntarily, and understandingly entered the guilty plea with effective assistance of counsel.