Opinion ID: 2640546
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Cocaine Case Plea Agreement

Text: [¶ 15] Any plea agreement in the cocaine case was also unwritten. We therefore look to the recitation of the plea agreement at the change-of-plea hearing to attempt to determine whether an agreement existed and, if so, the content of such agreement. Ford, 2003 WY 65, ¶ 12, 69 P.3d at 411. [Defense attorney]: Miss Fernandez will be pleading to the counts of the information as charged. The only understanding that I have is that her guilty plea and factual basis to these, the district attorney will agree that she's accepted responsibility for her acts. [¶ 16] Fernandez claims that the State breached its promise to agree that she's accepted responsibility for her acts when it made the following argument at the consolidated sentencing hearing: [Prosecutor]: . . . The bottom line is this, as was put on the record before Judge Grant, she entered those pleas essentially cold with no sentencing agreement with the understanding that if she did accept responsibility for her ongoing drug trafficking behavior, that the state would take that into account in terms of its recommendation as to how long she should go to Women's Center. The problem is that the presentence report indicates that she doesn't believe she has pled to possession with intent to deliver or any other delivery offenses and clearly that's not what the record shows. She did in fact plead guilty to possession with intent to deliver and delivery of two counts and the additional counts of conspiracy. The facts are outlined on the record that indicate as to what behavior she was pleading guilty to, but she has now turned around and said, no, I'm guilty of agreeing to being in the drug business but I didn't do these other things. [Defense attorney] just indicated that that presentence report is substantially correct, so I don't understand how she can now argue that that's acceptance of responsibility for that behavior. (Emphasis added.) [¶ 17] Defense counsel objected to parts of the statement dealing with the welfare fraud plea agreement, but not to these responsibility arguments. The initial question we must answer, then, is whether to review this alleged error under the de novo standard set out above or under the plain error standard of W.R.Cr.P. 52(b) and W.R.A.P. 9.05 as applied in Rutti, 2004 WY 133, 100 P.3d 394. [¶ 18] In Rutti, 2004 WY 133, ¶ 40, 100 P.3d at 410, the appellant had agreed to plead guilty to two counts against him and, in exchange, the State agreed to dismiss two other counts charged in the information. The appellant argued that his plea agreement was breached when the State dismissed the two counts without prejudice such that they could be charged again at a later date. Id. However, Rutti never objected to the State's actions in the trial court. Id. We said that the first hurdle, then, is to prove plain error. Once again, [p]lain error will not be assigned unless: (1) the record clearly reflects the incidents urged as error; (2) appellant is able to demonstrate violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law; and (3) it is shown that a substantial right of the appellant was materially abridged. Id. at ¶ 41, 100 P.3d at 410 ( quoting Seymour v. State, 949 P.2d 881, 883 (Wyo.1997)). [¶ 19] Because Fernandez raises this issue for the first time on appeal, we think it clear that our review must be under the plain error standard. Therefore, we must first determine whether the record clearly reflects the incidents urged as error. The thrust of Fernandez's argument is that the plea agreement recited by Fernandez's attorney was breached by the State's argument at sentencing. As set out fully above, the record is clear as to which statements Fernandez is challenging. [¶ 20] While the record is clear in that regard, Fernandez fails to show that, based on this record, a plea agreement actually existed. Therefore, we cannot find that the second prong of the plain error analysis has been satisfied. Under our plain error standard of review, an appellant must demonstrate a violation of a clear and unequivocal rule of law. As we have often stated, when a defendant pleads guilty in reliance on a promise from the State, the State must fulfill that promise. Rutti, 2004 WY 133, ¶ 42, 100 P.3d at 410. Fernandez has not shown this rule was violated because she has failed to show that she pled guilty in reliance on a plea agreement with the State. [¶ 21] Because Fernandez failed to object to the prosecutor's comments, our review is difficult. As quoted above, the prosecutor spoke at length about Fernandez's failure to accept responsibility for the charges against her. The prosecutor also expressly characterized Fernandez's pleas in the cocaine case as cold and made with no sentencing agreement. Prompted by the State's argument, the district court also discussed Fernandez's acceptance of responsibility in both cases in great detail: THE COURT: . . . This Court does have some questions, frankly, with regards to whether or not Ms. Fernandez is taking responsibility for her wrongful conduct. And notes in the presentence report on page six at the bottom of the page with regards to welfare fraud. The probation officer reports that The defendant maintains that her actions do not constitute fraud. Mainly, because Tim Pena is in fact not the father of her daughter. She accepted this plea agreement only as a measure of good faith because in doing so she thought she would receive leniency in a pending drug offense. Which is sort of reverse, I think, of the argument that I heard with regard to the state's position. She also states that The plea agreement is in fact a sort of scam perpetrated upon her by the district attorney's office. She further reports that the matter in her case has been complicated by the shuffle of defense attorneys and an attorney had not adequately represented her. She took the plea agreement because she believes that fighting the pending welfare case would be more difficult and only create more problems for her in other cases pending in court. The Court would note, although the Court has not reviewed the record, the Court recalls numerous opportunities this Court had to observe Ms. Fernandez in court and while I can't point to anything in the record, the Court recalls  certainly had some questions that at all of those hearings there was a sense that Ms. Fernandez was very reluctant to be held accountable and take responsibility for her actions, although in the end she did enter a guilty plea to all three counts, which is certainly some sort of accountability. There's no doubt about that. [¶ 22] However, even after these lengthy discussions, Fernandez failed to object. Indeed, at the district court level, Fernandez has never attempted to withdraw her guilty pleas in the cocaine case. Based on Fernandez's failure to object or attempt to withdraw her pleas, we are presented with an ambiguous and contradictory record. [¶ 23] We interpret plea agreements under contract principles. Rutti, 2004 WY 133, ¶ 42, 100 P.3d at 410. A central tenet of contract law is that, in order for a contract to be formed, the parties must mutually assent to the same terms. Parkhurst v. Boykin, 2004 WY 90, ¶ 18, 94 P.3d 450, 459 (Wyo.2004). In the instant case, we are unable to conclude that Fernandez and the State mutually assented to a plea agreement. We are presented with only one statement in the record that tends to show that a plea agreement existed, namely that the district attorney will agree that she's accepted responsibility for her acts. On the other hand, we are presented with pages of transcript which, if a plea agreement actually existed, would seem to violate any such unconditional agreement or, at the very least, prompt Fernandez to object to the State's arguments. We will not assume a plea agreement existed where the conduct of the parties does not support the existence of such an agreement and the terms recited in the record are not sufficiently definite to enable us to ascertain the content of the agreement. See Roussalis v. Wyoming Med. Ctr., Inc., 4 P.3d 209, 231-32 (Wyo.2000) and Engle v. First Nat'l Bank of Chugwater, 590 P.2d 826, 831 (Wyo.1979). [¶ 24] Because we must find any error to be clearly evident from the record, and because there was no objection or other attempt to clarify the record at trial, we cannot resolve ambiguity against the State and assume that it breached a plea agreement that was referred to only in passing by defense counsel and never mentioned at sentencing. Therefore, we affirm the judgment and sentence in Case No. 04-213.