People v. Chavez, 98CA1431.
| Decision Date | 26 November 1999 |
| Docket Number | No. 98CA1431.,98CA1431. |
| Citation | 7 P.3d 1047 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony M. CHAVEZ, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | Colorado Court of Appeals |
Certiorari Denied August 21, 2000.1
Ken Salazar, Attorney General, Christine Cates Brady, Assistant Attorney General, Denver, Colorado, for Plaintiff-Appellee.
David F. Vela, Colorado State Public Defender, James Grimaldi, Deputy State Public Defender, Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.
Opinion by Judge DAVIDSON.
Defendant, Anthony M. Chavez, appeals from the trial court's order denying his motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Crim. P. 35(c). We affirm.
Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance, a class four felony, while the People dismissed the remaining charges against him. The written plea agreement indicated that the parties had stipulated that defendant would be sentenced to eight years in a community corrections facility, or, if he was not accepted by community corrections, would receive a four-year sentence to the Department of Corrections (DOC).
In addition to the written plea agreement, defendant signed a form entitled "Request to Plead Guilty (Rule 11 Advisement)." By placing his initials next to each paragraph of the written advisement, defendant acknowledged that he understood its contents, including the fact that he "could be required to serve up to five years on parole after serving a sentence" (emphasis added). Defendant further confirmed that "[a]ny proposed plea agreement is fully set forth in the written plea agreement of the parties" and that he understood that the court would not be bound by any representations made to him regarding sentencing that were not contained in the written plea agreement.
After accepting defendant's guilty plea as knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered, the trial court held a sentencing hearing at which counsel indicated that defendant had been rejected by community corrections. The court then sentenced defendant to a four-year term in the DOC "plus three years of parole."
Defendant, acting pro se, thereafter filed his Crim. P. 35(c) motion. As pertinent here, defendant claimed that his plea agreement provided for a stipulated four-year sentence, and that his attorney told him that any parole period would be served as part of, not in addition to, the four-year sentence. He claimed that, because the four-year prison sentence plus the three-year mandatory parole period resulted in an aggregate sentence of seven years, the sentence imposed exceeded the four-year stipulated sentence provided for under the plea agreement. Relying on People v. Sandoval, 809 P.2d 1058 (Colo.App. 1990), defendant claimed that he was entitled to specific performance of the plea agreement as he understood it, and requested that his prison sentence be reduced to one year so that his total sentence, including the parole period, would be four years.
The trial court denied the motion, concluding that defendant had been advised, both in writing and by the providency court, regarding the mandatory parole period.
Defendant contends that the trial court erred by denying his motion without holding a hearing. We disagree.
The supreme court recently decided Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo.1999), in which it overruled People v. Sandoval, supra.
In Craig, the supreme court held that cases involving post-conviction challenges to the imposition of a mandatory parole period require a two-part inquiry.
First, the court must determine whether the defendant was explicitly promised a sentence that alters or eliminates the statutorily required mandatory parole period. Absent an express promise regarding mandatory parole, the agreement will not be interpreted as providing for a sentence related to mandatory parole that is statutorily prohibited. However, if such an express promise was made and was a material part of the plea agreement, the defendant's plea is rendered invalid unless the error is determined to be harmless. Because such an agreement calls for an illegal sentence, the defendant would not be entitled to specific enforcement of the plea agreement. Craig v. People, supra. Second, the court must determine whether the defendant was adequately advised regarding the mandatory parole period. If the defendant received an inadequate advisement and the error was not harmless, the remedy is to reduce the defendant's sentence, provided such a modification would not result in an illegal sentence. If the defendant's sentence cannot be reduced, the only remedy for the improper advisement is to permit the defendant to withdraw his plea. Craig v. People, supra.
Applying the principles announced in Craig and its companion case, Benavidez v. People, 986 P.2d 943 (Colo.1999), we now turn to an analysis of defendant's claims.
Defendant claims that his plea agreement called for a stipulated four-year sentence comprised of a one-year prison term (a sentence below the minimum presumptive-range sentence) and a three-year mandatory parole period; thus, he contends that the sentence imposed violates the terms of his plea agreement. He claims that he is entitled to specific enforcement of the agreement as he understood it, and that his sentence must therefore be reduced. We disagree.
Initially, we note that the determination of the meaning of a plea agreement is a question of law. Accordingly, we review the trial court's determination of the meaning of a plea agreement and its interpretation of a party's obligation under the agreement de novo. Craig v. People, supra.
In interpreting a plea agreement, we determine "the meaning a reasonable person would have attached" under the circumstances. Craig v. People, supra.
This is an objective test, and is thus not based on the subjective understanding of the defendant.
Here, the parties' agreement regarding sentencing as described in the written plea agreement provides that if defendant could not be sentenced to a community corrections facility, he would receive a four-year "DOC" sentence.
In Craig, the supreme court, interpreting nearly identical language in the defendant's plea agreement, rejected the claim that the parties intended the stipulated "DOC" sentence to limit the defendant's total sentence, including the mandatory parole term, to the period specified. The court concluded that a reasonable person would understand a stipulated DOC sentence as referring to the imprisonment component of the sentence only, not the defendant's "overall exposure." Craig v. People, supra.
Thus, contrary to defendant's assertion, the parties' sentencing agreement was limited to the amount of time he would serve in prison, and did not speak to the issue of mandatory parole.
We reject defendant's claim that counsel's alleged assurance that the stipulated four-year DOC sentence would include the mandatory parole period requires that we reach a different result.
cert. denied, 485 U.S. 990, 108 S.Ct. 1296, 99 L.Ed.2d 506 (1988).
Thus, when a written plea agreement is unambiguous, an inaccurate advisement by the providency court does not alter the clear terms of the parties' bargain, unless the court adds an entirely new term to the bargain. See Craig v. People, supra; Benavidez v. People, supra. Similarly, we conclude that an inaccurate oral advisement by counsel does not alter the terms of a plea agreement.
Here, the written documents unambiguously provided that defendant would receive a four-year DOC sentence followed by a mandatory parole period of up to five years. By signing the Rule 11 Advisement form, defendant acknowledged that "[a]ny proposed plea agreement is fully set forth in the written plea agreement of the parties." That counsel allegedly told defendant...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Sifuentes
...the postconviction court focused on what he would have done if he had known.¶ 28 The postconviction court also cited People v. Chavez , 7 P.3d 1047 (Colo. App. 1999), to support its view that defendant could not obtain relief even if he satisfied both prongs of Strickland . Because Chavez d......
-
People v. Hodge
...advisement (2 to 32 years), on the other hand, based on cases such as People v. DiGuglielmo, 33 P.3d at 1250, and People v. Chavez, 7 P.3d 1047, 1051 (Colo.App.1999). Those cases oblige a defendant to speak where the court's providency hearing advisement is contrary to the terms of the plea......
-
People v. DiGuglielmo, 00CA0402.
...so, rather than assert as the basis for postconviction relief that he or she was confused at the providency hearing. People v. Chavez, 7 P.3d 1047, 1051 (Colo.App.1999); see Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951, 966 (Colo.1999)(although defendant contended his advisement by the providency court wa......
-
People v. Laurson, No. 01CA1848.
...the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that the apparent waiver was not effective. See Craig v. People, supra; People v. Chavez, 7 P.3d 1047 (Colo.App.1999). While a printed form is not a substitute for the trial court's determination that the advisement requirements of Crim. P. 11......