Summary 2006 WY 8

Summary of Decision issued January 12, 2006

[SPECIAL NOTE: These opinions use the "Universal Citation." They were given "official" citations when they were issued. You should use these citations whenever you cite these opinions, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinions that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance.]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Fernandez v. State

Citation: 2006 WY 8

Docket Number: 04-213, 04-214

Appeal from the District Court of Laramie County, Honorable E. James Burke, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Kenneth Koski, Public Defender; Donna D. Domonkos, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Attorney General; Paul S. Rehurek, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric Johnson, Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; Jenny L. Craig, Student Director; Eric Heimann, Intern; and Timothy Justin Forwood, Intern.

Date of Decision: January 12, 2006

Issues: Whether the State violated plea agreements in felony welfare fraud and felony cocaine-related charges during the sentencing hearing.

Holdings: Case No. 04-214 The standard for reviewing claimed breaches of plea agreements is a question that is reviewed de novo. The plea agreement is a contract between the defendant and the State and general principles of contract law apply. When reviewing breaches of plea agreements, the Court applies a two-part test including (1) examination of the nature of the promise and (2) evaluation of the promise in the light of the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the promise at the time the plea was entered. The plea agreements were not reduced to writing so the Court looked to the recitation of the plea agreement given at the change-of-plea hearing. The plea agreement in the welfare fraud case was not at issue. The issue was whether the State complied with the undisputed terms of the agreement. The Court reviewed the transcripts from sentencing and the record as a whole and was satisfied that the welfare fraud plea agreement was not breached.
Case No. 04-213 The plea agreement in the cocaine case was also unwritten. The Court looked 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. The issue was raised for the first time on appeal so the Court reviewed under the plain error standard. Appellant failed to show that she pled guilty in reliance on a plea agreement with the State. Appellant failed to object or attempt to withdraw her pleas, so the Court reviewed an ambiguous and contradictory record. Interpreting under contract principles, the Court was unable to conclude that the parties mutually assented to a plea agreement. The record did not tend to show a plea agreement existed. The Court will not assume an 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 them to ascertain the content of the agreement. Therefore the Court affirmed the judgment and sentence.

The district court's judgment is affirmed in both cases.

J. Voigt delivered the opinion for the court.

Link to this case: http://tinyurl.com/b3t53 .