Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
State v. Rivera
Citations: 871 P.2d 1023; 234 Utah Adv. Rep. 31; 1994 Utah App. LEXIS 43; 1994 WL 88857Docket: 930154-CA
Court: Court of Appeals of Utah; March 11, 1994; Utah; State Appellate Court
Defendant Danny Rivera entered a conditional plea of no contest to the charge of possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, aiming to preserve his right to appeal the district court's denial of his motion to quash the bindover from the circuit court. The Court of Appeals of Utah vacated the district court's acceptance of the plea and remanded for further proceedings. On July 26, 1992, Brenda Kilgrow, a cashier at a Top Stop Store, encountered Rivera, who allegedly attempted to rob her. After asking her to cash a check, he returned, displayed a gun, and demanded money. Kilgrow handed him $22 and activated a silent alarm. Rivera fled the store after unsuccessfully searching for more money. Officer Dusten Hansen, responding to the robbery, spotted Rivera driving nearby and initiated a pursuit, which escalated as Rivera failed to stop and drove at high speeds. After losing control of his vehicle and attempting to evade arrest, Rivera was apprehended following a struggle with officers. At the time of arrest, he matched Kilgrow's description. A handgun was later found in Rivera's vehicle, along with a baseball cap. He was charged with aggravated robbery, possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person, and failure to respond to an officer's signal to stop. At the preliminary hearing, the magistrate established probable cause for the defendant's trial on three counts. Following this, the defendant filed a motion in district court to quash the bindover order for Counts I and II, which was denied. The defendant then entered a conditional no contest plea to Count II, aiming to preserve the right to appeal the denial of the quash motion; Counts I and III were dismissed as part of this plea. The key issue for the court is whether the district court erred in allowing this conditional plea. Referencing *State v. Sery*, the court noted that conditional pleas are permissible when they preserve specific issues for appeal, provided the prosecution consents and the trial judge accepts the plea. The court emphasized that the plea affirms factual guilt while allowing for an appeal on the admissibility of evidence. Recent cases, including *Montoya* and *Harris*, clarified that for a conditional plea to be valid, it must involve evidence obtained through alleged illegal means and the resolution of the appeal must effectively conclude the prosecution. If the appellate court rules against the admission of contested evidence, the case must end, as the prosecution cannot prove its case without that evidence. The court also acknowledged that *Keitz* expanded the types of legal issues eligible for a conditional plea, but still required that the appeal's outcome must bring the prosecution to an end. Defendants cannot use Sery pleas to bypass the strict finality requirement essential for orderly review of nonfinal, interlocutory decisions. A Sery plea is improper unless it effectively concludes the prosecution of the case. In this instance, the defendant entered a conditional no contest plea regarding a weapon possession charge to appeal the denial of his motion to quash the bindover. If the court were to address this issue, it could either affirm the district court's decision, which would end the prosecution, or reverse it, allowing the State to refile charges. The dismissal of other counts was contingent upon the defendant's plea, meaning a reversal would enable the State to pursue those counts as well. Thus, a trial court must ensure that any plea conditioned on the right to appeal will definitively end the prosecution. In this case, the district court improperly accepted the conditional plea since the appeal would not necessarily conclude the prosecution. Consequently, the plea is vacated, and the case is remanded for trial or further proceedings. Further, there are notes regarding the reliability of the identification evidence and a clarification of the defendant's status as a restricted person under Utah law. Additionally, the defendant's argument regarding conflicts with Rule 11(i) of the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure is addressed, asserting that the ability to withdraw a plea upon a successful appeal does not violate the Sery finality requirement. Finally, conditions under which charges may be refiled are discussed, emphasizing the need for good cause.