Does a conditional plea agreement excuse preservation and briefing requirements on appeal? Hattrich v. State Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals addressed an important question about the scope of conditional plea agreements in Hattrich v. State, clarifying that such agreements cannot override fundamental appellate procedural requirements.

Background and Facts

Hattrich was charged with 30 criminal acts involving sexual abuse of three child victims. The day before trial, he entered a conditional no contest plea to three counts of sodomy on a child, reserving his “right to appeal any issues which have arisen or been litigated in this case.” On direct appeal, the State argued that certain issues were unpreserved or inadequately briefed. Hattrich later filed a post-conviction petition claiming his pleas were not knowing and voluntary because he believed the agreement would allow him to raise any issue on appeal regardless of preservation or briefing requirements.

Key Legal Issues

The central issue was whether Hattrich’s conditional plea agreement excused him from standard appellate procedural requirements. The court also addressed multiple claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to pre-trial matters and appellate representation, and whether certain claims were procedurally barred under the Post-Conviction Remedies Act.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

Applying contract principles to interpret the plea agreement, the court found the language was “straightforward and explicit.” The agreement said nothing about removing preservation requirements or briefing standards. The court emphasized that plea agreements cannot override the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure, which “govern the procedure before the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals of Utah in all cases.” Hattrich’s subjective belief that the agreement provided broader rights was unreasonable given the plain language. The court also rejected most ineffective assistance claims, finding several were procedurally barred for being previously litigated on direct appeal.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that conditional plea agreements must comply with established procedural rules. Practitioners should draft such agreements with precise language about what appellate rights are actually being preserved, and ensure clients understand that standard preservation and briefing requirements still apply. The ruling also demonstrates the PCRA’s procedural bar prevents re-litigation of issues already addressed on direct appeal, even when reframed as ineffective assistance claims.