Utah Court of Appeals
Must defendants object to preserve claims of plea agreement breaches? State v. Friel Explained
Summary
Elizabeth Friel was sentenced to sixteen days in jail after pleading guilty to DUI. She argued on appeal that the State breached the plea agreement by recommending a harsher sentence based on her non-compliance with pre-sentencing alcohol testing requirements. The Court of Appeals found the claim unpreserved because Friel failed to object at sentencing.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
Background and Facts
Elizabeth Friel was arrested for driving under the influence while picking up her children from school. After being charged with multiple offenses including two DUI counts, she entered a plea agreement. In her handwritten Statement in Support of a Guilty Plea, Friel wrote that she would plead guilty to a Class A DUI in exchange for dismissal of other charges, with an agreed sentence of “10 days jail & 60 days SCRAM monitoring or 20 days jail.” The district court ordered Friel to comply with weekly ethyl glucuronide (EtG) tests during the pre-sentencing period.
Key Legal Issues
By sentencing, Friel had failed one EtG test, missed another, and had five samples found “altered.” At sentencing, the State argued for more jail time, representing that the original offer was contingent upon “defendant’s full compliance during this pre-sentence phase.” Friel did not object to this characterization and instead attempted to explain her test failures. The court sentenced her to sixteen days in jail and probation, more than the minimum contemplated in her understanding of the agreement.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The Utah Court of Appeals found Friel’s claim unpreserved because she failed to object to the State’s characterization of the plea agreement at sentencing. Under plain error review, Friel needed to show both that the prosecutor breached the agreement and that the breach should have been obvious to the district court. The court concluded that even assuming a breach occurred, it would not have been obvious to the trial court without an objection from Friel, as the court could reasonably believe the agreement’s benefits were contingent upon compliance with pre-sentencing requirements.
Practice Implications
This decision emphasizes the critical importance of preservation of error in plea agreement disputes. Defense counsel must contemporaneously object when the State allegedly mischaracterizes or departs from plea agreement terms. The court applied contract interpretation principles to plea agreements, noting that without an objection, trial courts cannot be expected to divine disputes about the parties’ intent regarding contingent terms in plea agreements.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Friel
Citation
2015 UT App 95
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20140334-CA
Date Decided
April 23, 2015
Outcome
Affirmed
Holding
A defendant who fails to object to the State’s characterization of a plea agreement at sentencing cannot establish plain error when the alleged breach would not have been obvious to the district court.
Standard of Review
Plain error review for unpreserved claims
Practice Tip
Always object contemporaneously at sentencing if you believe the State is mischaracterizing or departing from the terms of a plea agreement to preserve the issue for appeal.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.