State v. Terrazas
| Decision Date | 25 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 20130100–CA.,20130100–CA. |
| Court | Utah Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Robert TERRAZAS, Defendant and Appellant. |
Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant.
Sean D. Reyes and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee.
1
Opinion
¶ 1 Robert Terrazas appeals from the district court's decision to impose ten previously stayed prison sentences after the court determined that he had not complied with the terms of a cooperation agreement. Terrazas asserts that the court erred in treating a violation of the cooperation agreement like a breach of a plea agreement, which merely requires noncompliance, instead of like a violation of probation, which requires specific sorts of notice and a finding of willful noncompliance prior to revocation. Terrazas also asserts that the court erred in finding him in breach of the cooperation agreement. He argues that the agreement either was unenforceable or, alternatively, was satisfied through his good faith efforts to comply. We affirm.
¶ 2 In 2011, the State charged Terrazas with a variety of offenses in five separate cases, including multiple felony and misdemeanor drug offenses, a felony weapons-restriction violation, a felony resisting arrest offense, and several misdemeanor driving violations. In March 2012, Terrazas entered guilty pleas to four counts charged in one of the cases. The State then began plea negotiations with Terrazas on the four other cases because it believed that Terrazas, as a founding member of the Ogden Trece gang, could help prosecutors develop cases against the gang's leadership. As a result of the negotiations, Terrazas agreed to plead guilty to six felonies and enter a cooperation agreement with the State in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining misdemeanor counts and recommending a suspension of Terrazas's prison sentences in favor of probation if he complied with the cooperation agreement.
¶ 3 The cooperation agreement required Terrazas to lead the State to information that would allow it to prosecute three identified high-ranking members of the Ogden Trece gang who were involved in drug and firearms trafficking. Terrazas's primary task was to arrange meetings to buy controlled substances from each of these three individuals under circumstances monitored and controlled by the Ogden Metro Gang Unit. During the course of his performance under the agreement, he was required to maintain daily contact with the gang unit. The bulk of Terrazas's cooperation was to occur before June 11, 2012; however, the agreement provided for an extension of the time for Terrazas to comply so long as “a good faith effort ha[d] been made.” If Terrazas successfully performed, the State would recommend that his prison terms be converted to probation and, for his protection, would arrange for Terrazas to serve that probation in another state. If Terrazas “fail[ed] to complete the terms of this agreement,” the agreement would “become and void” and the State would “proceed [with] the pending charges for sentencing.”
¶ 4 In May 2012, attorneys for the State and for Terrazas informed the district court that they had entered into a plea agreement that included a cooperation component. In order to ensure that the stated goals could be met, the terms of the cooperation agreement were to be kept strictly confidential, even from the court; only the prosecutor, the Ogden Metro Gang Unit detective assigned to Terrazas (the Detective), and Terrazas and his attorney were privy to the agreement. The district court accepted the plea agreement on the “good faith” of the parties that “[Terrazas] would go out and comply with the terms of the [plea] agreement.”2 In accordance with the agreement, the court accepted Terrazas's guilty pleas to six felonies and sentenced him to the statutory indeterminate prison terms for each offense to run concurrently. The court also sentenced Terrazas on the four offenses he had previously pleaded to and ran those sentences concurrently with the sentences imposed on the six felonies. The court then stayed execution of the prison sentences for a period of three months to allow the parties to perform the activities contemplated by the cooperation agreement. The court scheduled a hearing for August 8, 2012, to review Terrazas's performance under the agreement. Terrazas was then released from custody.
¶ 5 For the first month after his release, Terrazas complied with the terms of the cooperation agreement. He maintained daily contact with the Detective and attempted to set up controlled buys. Then, he started “missing one day here, two days, and it finally got to three days, then actually there was one point, where there was a week he didn't call.” Terrazas also failed to follow through with the promised controlled buys: he either set up drug buys with individuals who were not targets identified in the agreement or set up buys with legitimate targets without providing the police with enough lead time or information to monitor the transactions. The Detective also began to receive calls from officers in other jurisdictions who had observed Terrazas selling drugs outside the controlled buys that he was to set up under the agreement. Most of the time, the Detective intervened to prevent Terrazas's arrest in order to allow him to continue working with the gang unit. But in late July 2012, the Detective did not intervene, and an agent with the Weber Morgan Narcotics Strike Force arrested Terrazas for selling methamphetamine.
¶ 6 After several continuances, Terrazas ultimately appeared before the district court for the contemplated sentence review hearing in January 2013. The State produced an unsigned copy of the cooperation agreement as evidence of its terms. The prosecutor who negotiated the cooperation agreement3 and the Detective each testified about the terms of the agreement and about what they saw as Terrazas's noncompliance. Terrazas also testified in his own behalf. Terrazas testified that he had signed a cooperation agreement with terms similar to those in the copy the State produced but that in the original, signed agreement, the signatures were on a separate, unproduced addendum that also listed the names of the three targeted individuals and contained a stipulation that the State would consider the agreement fulfilled if Terrazas, with the State's consent, attained prosecutable information against acceptable substitutes. Terrazas explained that he attempted to set up several controlled buys with the target individuals but that the police changed the appointments “[t]wo or three times” because “the officers couldn't be there.” He testified that he had also helped the officers to arrest two fugitives (though not the target individuals) in late June, and that he had been told that this assistance would at least buy him some extra time to comply.
¶ 7 After considering the evidence at the hearing, the district court found that although Terrazas had made some minimal effort, Terrazas did not fulfill his commitment to help the police obtain information against three identified leaders of the Ogden Trece gang. The court therefore found Terrazas to be “in violation of this agreement.” As a consequence, the court lifted the stay and imposed the prison sentences.4 Terrazas now appeals.
¶ 8 Terrazas asserts that the district court lifted the stay and imposed the sentences without providing him with the “[m]inimum [g]uarantees of Due Process.” The district court's handling of “[c]onstitutional issues, including questions regarding due process, are questions of law that we review for correctness.” State v. Turner, 2012 UT App 189, ¶ 15, 283 P.3d 527 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Specifically, Terrazas argues that the court ought to have treated the cooperation agreement like a probation agreement, which would permit the court to revoke the cooperation agreement and impose the prison sentences only if it followed the notice and procedural requirements of Utah Code section 77–18–1 and found any violation of the terms of the agreement to be willful.5 See Utah Code Ann. § 77–18–1(12) (LexisNexis 2012) ();6 see also State v. Hodges, 798 P.2d 270, 277 (Utah Ct.App.1990). The State counters that the cooperation agreement should be treated like a plea agreement, which requires only that the court look at the agreement's material terms to determine whether Terrazas had complied. The court's decision to treat the cooperation agreement like a plea agreement rather than probation presents an issue of law, which we review for correctness. See Turner, 2012 UT App 189, ¶ 15, 283 P.3d 527 (); State v. Masciantonio, 850 P.2d 492, 493 (Utah Ct.App.1993) ().
¶ 9 Terrazas also asserts that the district court erred in finding him in breach of the cooperation agreement because the agreement is ambiguous and amounts to a contract of adhesion that should be interpreted against the State, its drafter. Whether a contract is ambiguous is a question of law. State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381, 387 (Utah Ct.App.1997) (); see also WebBank v. American Gen. Annuity Serv. Corp., 2002 UT 88, ¶ 22, 54 P.3d 1139 (). Absent ambiguity, the interpretation of a contract is also a question of law. Meadow Valley Contractors, Inc. v. State Dep't of Transp., 2011 UT 35, ¶ 13, 266 P.3d 671 (). We...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Terrazas
...336 P.3d 594STATE of Utah, Plaintiff and Appellee,v.Robert TERRAZAS, Defendant and Appellant.No. 20130100–CA.Court of Appeals of Utah.Sept. 25, Affirmed. [336 P.3d 597] Samuel P. Newton, Attorney for Appellant.Sean D. Reyes and Kris C. Leonard, Salt Lake City, Attorneys for Appellee. Judge ......