Court Opinion

ID: 9787669
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:21:31.287238+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:59.206027
License: Public Domain

THORNE, Judge
(concurring in the result):
¶ 33 Although I respectfully concur in the result reached by the majority in this case, I cannot join in certain aspects of the majority’s analysis.
¶ 34 In this case, Smit entered into a plea bargain with the State wherein he would be allowed to plead guilty to one third degree felony, and the State would recommend that the trial court suspend any sentence and grant Smit probation. The written plea agreement signed by Smit articulated most, if not all, of the rule 11 requirements, including explaining that his plea created the possibility of incarceration. See Utah R. Crim P. 11. The trial court took Smit’s plea, explained the rights he was waiving, and informed him that the court could sentence him to be incarcerated for between zero and five years. Smit accepted this information and pleaded guilty. To this point, Smit does not complain about the proceedings. However, when asked at the sentencing hearing, and after hearing Smit assert that the State had promised to recommend no jail time, the prosecutor conceded that the State had agreed to recommend probation. The prosecutor added, however, that she would recommend that the court incarcerate Smit for at least three months as a condition of probation. Because of this dispute, the trial court recessed to allow the parties to review the agreement, and only after reviewing the details of the agreement did the prosecutor withdraw her request for jail time. The court then sentenced Smit to serve zero to five years at the state prison, but suspended the sentence and placed Smit on probation. However, as a condition of his probation, the court sentenced Smit to ninety days of incarceration.
¶ 35 Although the State’s decision to ask the court to incarcerate Smit seems to have been the result of confusion over the details of the agreement, there is no question that the State’s request violated the agreement, however temporarily. See Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262, 92 S.Ct. 495, 499 (1971) (stating that “a constant [safeguarding] factor is that when a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled”). However, under Santobello, in the face of the State’s breach, Smit had two choices from which he could elect, depending on the gravity of the breach: he could elect to ask for specific performance, which may include a request for a different sentencing judge, or for the opportunity to withdraw his plea. See id. at 263, 92 S.Ct. at 499. Smit requested specific performance, but not a different judge. The State complied and withdrew its recommendation, and only then did the trial court pronounce sentence. Consequently, Smit elected his remedy prior to the court sentencing him. He effectively eliminated any possible reliance on the breach as grounds for his later motion to withdraw his plea. The fact that he could have, particularly with the benefit of hindsight, asked to be sentenced by a different judge is of no conse*1211quence to the instant appeal. He did not ask, and does not argue on appeal that the trial court has a duty to, sua sponte, transfer the case to another judge. Accordingly, I would conclude that the State’s breach of the plea agreement activated the Santobelló remedies and that Smit’s decision to seek specific performance was an election of the remedy of his choice. In so electing, Smit could not later attempt to elect the alternative remedy when he was dissatisfied with the outcome, and the trial court correctly denied his motion to withdraw his plea.
¶36 I also disagree with the majority’s approach to Smit’s argument concerning his incarceration and the trial court’s duty under rule 11. Under rule 11, trial courts are duty-bound to provide defendants with several critical pieces of information that may or may not influence a defendant’s decision concerning a guilty plea. See State v. Gibbons, 740 P.2d 1309, 1312 (Utah 1987). In this case, two particular requirements of rule 11 are of central importance. First, Smit was informed that the trial court was not bound by any sentencing recommendation made by the State in this matter. See Utah R.Crim. P. 11(g)(2). From the record, Smit was informed of, and he clearly understood, the court’s discretionary role in the sentencing calculus. After hearing this information, Smit opted to continue with the proceedings. Second, the trial court was required to explain the range of sentencing possibilities that Smit faced if he pleaded guilty to a third degree felony. See Utah R.Crim. P. 11(e)(5). Consequently, the trial court informed Smit that it had the authority to sentence him to incarceration for a period of up to five years. See Utah Code Ann. § 76-3-203(3) (2003). Therefore, Smit was fully apprised that by pleading guilty he faced the possibility of incarceration for up to five years — regardless of his plea agreement with the State. His later protestations that he did not understand that probation might also include incarceration is unavailing. He knew that incarceration was a possibility, yet he affirmatively decided to plead guilty.
¶ 37 Rule 11 merely requires that the trial court inform the defendant of the range of possibilities, a duty that the trial court, in this ease, clearly performed. The fact that Smit was dissatisfied with his eventual sentence does not demonstrate a rule 11 violation, and the majority’s discussion of “collateral consequences” is unnecessary. Smit was informed that the court was the final arbiter of sentencing and that by pleading guilty he faced the possibility of incarceration. It is of no import that his incarceration was also attached to a probation order. Accordingly, I disagree with the majority’s foray into plain error as well as its decision to address Smit’s incarceration as somehow outside of the range of sentencing explained to Smit by the trial court.
¶ 38 Although I disagree with certain aspects of the majority approach, I do not disagree with the outcome. Therefore, I concur in the result.