Ambiguous Plea Agreement Read In Favor of Defendant

Wade Peterson was arrested for possession of a controlled substance and some misdemeanors. The PCS was dismissed by the magistrate because the State had failed to obtain a lab report and the misdemeanors were sent to magistrate court. Later, a new criminal complaint was filed charging the previously dismissed PCP, but the case was never joined with the misdemeanors.


Later, Mr. Peterson appeared before a magistrate and entered into an oral Rule 11 settlement with the State. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor concealed weapon charge, and the remaining charge under that complaint, misdemeanor possession of drug paraphernalia, was dismissed. His attorney stated that the plea agreement was intended to resolve all charges and the prosecutor did not dispute that statement.

Mr. Peterson completed his probation for the concealed weapon charge, but was then arrested on the PCP charge. The district court denied his Motion to Dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, rejecting his claim that the possession of a controlled substance charge had already been disposed of by the plea agreement, but the Supreme Court reversed.

First, the Court noted that "[a]mbiguities in a plea agreement are to be interpreted in favor of the defendant. As with other contracts, provisions of plea agreements are occasionally ambiguous; the government ordinarily must bear responsibility for any lack of clarity.‟ (Internal citations omitted.)

Second, the Court found that Mr. Peterson had met his burden of proving the existence and content of that contract through the introduction of the transcript of the plea hearing. "The record before us demonstrates that Peterson understood the plea agreement to be in resolution of all charges arising from his August 20, 2003, arrest."

The Court ordered that the conviction be vacated.

State v. Peterson, http://www.isc.idaho.gov/opinions/peterson%20final%20opn.pdf

Hats off to Diane Walker of SAPD for a job well done!