Can defense counsel create invited error by misstating plea agreement terms? State v. Shaffer Explained

In State v. Shaffer, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether a defendant can challenge an alleged plea agreement breach when defense counsel affirmatively endorsed the modified terms at sentencing.

Background and Facts

Shaffer pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery after using a gun to threaten an employee during a mobile phone store robbery. The written plea agreement provided that the State would recommend a suspended prison sentence with two years in jail with credit for time served. However, at sentencing, defense counsel represented to the court that the State had agreed to recommend “a year in jail beyond the time that [Shaffer] had already served.” The prosecutor then recommended one year with no credit for time served. The trial court rejected this recommendation entirely and sentenced Shaffer to five years to life in prison.

Key Legal Issues

The central issues were whether the State breached the plea agreement by modifying its sentencing recommendation and whether Shaffer could establish plain error or ineffective assistance of counsel despite failing to preserve these claims at trial.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals found that any error was invited error because defense counsel “explicitly and affirmatively represented to the trial court” that the plea agreement included the modified recommendation before the prosecutor spoke. Under the invited error doctrine, “a party cannot take advantage of an error committed at trial when that party led the trial court into committing the error.”

Regarding ineffective assistance, the court held that even if counsel performed deficiently, Shaffer suffered no prejudice because the trial court completely rejected the State’s recommendation in favor of the pre-sentence report’s recommendation for prison time. The court emphasized that “the question with regard to prejudice” focuses on whether the defendant’s sentence was affected, not whether he would have entered the plea.

Practice Implications

This case underscores the critical importance of carefully reviewing written plea agreements before making representations to the court. Defense counsel must ensure their statements accurately reflect the agreed terms to avoid creating invited error that precludes later challenges. Additionally, the decision clarifies that prejudice analysis in plea agreement breach cases focuses on the actual sentence imposed, not the defendant’s decision to enter the plea.