Summary
The Utah Supreme Court held that a defendant's challenge alleging prosecutorial breach of a plea agreement is a challenge to a guilty plea under Utah Code section 77-13-6. The court concluded that such a claim must be pursued under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act rather than through a Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion or a motion for misplea. The court affirmed dismissal of Steven Thurman's motion.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a belated challenge to a guilty plea based on an alleged prosecutorial breach of the plea agreement must be brought under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act rather than by a Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion or motion for a misplea.
- Whether the Post-Conviction Remedies Act provides an avenue for relief for a Santobello-type claim alleging that the prosecution breached promises that induced the guilty plea.
Holdings
- A belated claim alleging that the prosecution breached a plea agreement and thereby violated due process is a challenge to a guilty plea within the broad language of Utah Code section 77-13-6(2)(c), even if the claim is not based on an allegation that the plea was not knowing and voluntary.
- The PCRA provides an avenue for relief for a claim that a conviction was obtained in violation of due process because the prosecution breached promises that induced the guilty plea, regardless of whether the plea was knowing and voluntary.
Key quotations
“Both parts of Mr. Thurman’s motion, his arguments rooted in Utah Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) and his motion for declaration of a misplea, are challenges to his guilty plea.” (¶ 24)
“He may file a petition under the PCRA based on his Santobello claim, as he already has, whether or not his guilty plea was knowing and voluntary.” (¶ 31)
“The Plea Withdrawal Statute requires all challenges to guilty pleas made outside of the statute’s framework be brought under the PCRA.” (Conclusion ¶ 32)
Factual background
After Thurman placed a pipe bomb in his ex-wife's new boyfriend's car, the bomb exploded and killed the boyfriend's eleven-year-old son. Thurman ultimately pleaded guilty to depraved indifference murder under an agreement requiring the State to dismiss other counts and make specified recommendations to the Board of Pardons and Parole. He later alleged that prosecutors failed to recommend an early parole hearing and that his attorneys be permitted to represent him at parole hearings.
Procedural history
Thurman pleaded guilty to depraved indifference murder under a plea agreement after an earlier guilty plea was withdrawn. More than twenty-three years later, he alleged that prosecutors breached the plea agreement by failing to make promised recommendations to the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole. He filed a PCRA petition and, separately, the Rule 60(b) and misplea motions at issue. The district court dismissed the latter motions, concluding that the challenge had to be pursued under the PCRA, and Thurman appealed.