Court Opinion

ID: 9742271
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:09:53.031232+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:30.479636
License: Public Domain

CHEZEM, Presiding Judge,
concurring.
While I concur with the majority, I do so since Duvall signed a confession in which he admitted to committing the offense. Record at 38. The deferred prosecution agreement, by itself, did not include an admission of guilt. Unless such an agreement is accompanied by some admission of guilt by the criminal defendant, I would hold that the resulting dismissal is a termination of the proceeding in his favor.
In Wong v. Tabor (1981), Ind.App., 422 N.E.2d 1279, Judge Garrard wrote as follows:
Compromise and settlement implies something more than one party merely advising another as to his decision with regard to a particular matter in dispute. At a minimum, settlement requires some act or process of adjusting one’s differences in reaching an agreement over disputed matters ... Voluntary abandonment or discontinuance of the claim would be sufficient to constitute termination in favor of the defendant.
Id. at 1285 (citations omitted).
A deferred prosecution agreement is the voluntary abandonment of a prosecution on the part of the prosecutor, subject to the reservation that if the defendant commits another offense, the prosecution will be renewed. The criminal defendant has not made any adjustments to resolve any differences that exist between the defendant and the state and/or the victim. Therefore, a dismissal pursuant to such an agreement does constitute a termination in favor of the prior defendant.
Here, however, Duvall signed a confession prior to the prosecution. Therefore, the agreement, and subsequent dismissal, does not “vindicate” Duvall; the confession “taints” Duvall’s innocence and public policy requires that the deferred prosecution agreement have the same effect as if Du-vall had pleaded guilty. Therefore, I concur in the result reached by the majority.