Can the state rescind a plea agreement based on mutual mistake about current penalties? State v. Patience Explained

In State v. Patience, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed whether the State can rescind a plea agreement when both parties were unaware of statutory changes reducing criminal penalties that were already in effect when the agreement was made.

Background and Facts

Defendant Patience was charged with three counts of forgery in March 1995, when forgery was a second degree felony. However, effective May 1, 1995, the legislature amended the statute to make all forgeries third degree felonies. In October 1995, the parties negotiated a plea agreement under which Patience would plead guilty to three counts of attempted forgery, believing these were third degree felonies. Unknown to both parties, the amendments had also reduced attempted forgery to a class A misdemeanor.

At sentencing in December 1995, all parties remained unaware of the legislative changes. The trial court imposed three consecutive zero-to-five year terms for what it believed were three third degree felonies. The State later discovered the error and sought to rescind the plea agreement based on mutual mistake.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed three issues: (1) whether defendants are entitled to reduced penalties when statutes are amended before sentencing, (2) whether the State can rescind a plea agreement based on mutual mistake about the law, and (3) whether multiple forgeries can be consolidated into a single count.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The Court of Appeals reaffirmed the well-established rule that “defendants are entitled to the benefit of the lesser penalty afforded by an amended statute made effective prior to their sentencing.” This rule reflects the legislature’s judgment that lesser penalties are sufficient to meet the ends of criminal law.

Regarding the State’s attempt to rescind the plea agreement, the court applied contract law principles but noted their limitations in the criminal context. The court held that the State bore the risk of mistake about the law because it is “in the better position to know the correct law” and “must be deemed to know the law it is enforcing.” The State cannot rescind a plea agreement merely because it made “a bad bargain” due to its own uninduced mistake about statutory provisions.

Practice Implications

This decision emphasizes the importance of staying current with statutory changes when negotiating plea agreements. Prosecutors must verify current penalty provisions before agreeing to specific charges. The court’s refusal to allow rescission protects defendants’ constitutional rights while placing appropriate responsibility on the State to know its own laws. For defense attorneys, this case provides strong precedent for seeking reduced sentences when beneficial legislative changes occur before sentencing.