Summary 2008 WY 3

Summary of Decision issued January 10, 2008

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

Case Name: Booth v. State

Citation: 2008 WY 3

Docket Number: S-07-0004

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellant (Defendant): Diane M. Lozano, State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel; Donna D. Domonkos, Senior Assistant Appellate Counsel

Representing Appellee (Plaintiff): Patrick J. Crank, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; and D. Michael Pauling, Senior Assistant Attorney General.

Facts/Discussion: Appellant sought review of the district court’s judgment and sentence which found him guilty of first-degree, felony murder in the shooting death of a cab driver during a robbery and imposed a sentence of life without the possibility of parole. He entered into a plea bargain wherein he agreed to plead guilty to felony murder in exchange for the State deleting the premeditation aspect of first-degree murder and dismissing Count II of the complaint aggravated robbery as defined by Wyo. Stat. 6-2-401. He contended that the State breached the plea agreement by introducing evidence of premeditation and that, therefore, he be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea.

Holdings: When a plea of guilty is entered as a result of a plea agreement, any promises made by the State must be fulfilled and whether a prosecutor has violated an alleged agreement is a question that is reviewed de novo. A plea agreement is a contract between the defendant and the State to which the general principles of contract law are applied. When determining whether a breach of the plea agreement has occurred a court must: (1) examine the nature of the promise; and (2) evaluate the promise in light of the defendant's reasonable understanding of the promise at the time the plea was entered. The State may not obtain the benefit of the agreement and at the same time avoid its obligations without violating either the principles of fairness or the principles of contract law.
Appellant’s argument is that he entered into the bargain believing that the State would not be permitted to offer evidence of the sort of premeditation which typically is used to support first-degree, premeditated murder. At the sentencing hearing, the State produced evidence which arguably was directed at the subject of premeditation, over the objection of the defense. That evidence at least suggested he premeditated the murder of whomever the cab driver might have been who answered his call and, furthermore, that he did not feel remorse about the crime. Of course, it also went to establishing that Appellant had committed the robbery and murder “knowingly” and “purposely.”
The plea agreement in this case could best be described as “sketchy.” Appellant asked that the language -- “delete the premeditation aspect of first-degree murder”—be read to encompass a conclusion that the prosecution could not offer evidence which suggested that Appellant did anything other than accidentally fire the pistol during the course of the robbery. To be sure, it is evident that the State did not agree with that interpretation at the time defense counsel uttered the words he used to describe his understanding of the plea agreement, because the prosecutor stated that the operative language for consideration in the instant case was that Appellant “unlawfully, knowingly, and purposely, in the perpetration of any robbery kill another human being….” It is, of course unfortunate, if not inexcusable, that a plea bargain of this magnitude, and in a case with such profoundly significant consequences, was not reduced to writing so that its perimeters could be better defined and understood. However, based on the record, the State did not breach either the letter or the spirit of the plea agreement.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the opinion for the court.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/yqbtck .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion 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 using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]