Opinion
No. 3-685 / 02-1808
Filed October 15, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court forMahaska County, James Q. Blomgren, Judge.
Defendant appeals the judgment and sentence entered upon his guilty plea to delivery of methamphetamine, in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6) (2001) and sentence as an habitual offender pursuant to Iowa Code section 902.8. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Dennis Hendrickson, Assistant Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Darrel Mullins, Assistant Attorney General, and Charles Stream, County Attorney, for appellee.
Considered by Miller, P.J., Hecht, J., and Hendrickson, S.J.
Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2001).
Pursuant to a plea agreement, the defendant-appellant, James Lee Fields, pled guilty to one count of delivery of methamphetamine in violation of Iowa Code section 124.401(1)(c)(6) (2001). Fields now claims that his sentence for the drug-related offense should be vacated because the district court erroneously concluded he had not complied with the terms of a cooperation agreement. Because we find that Fields violated the terms of the agreement, we affirm.
Background
James Lee Fields was charged with two counts of delivery of methamphetamine as a result of alleged sales to a confidential informant on January 9 and February 17, 2002. In addition, the State alleged that sentencing enhancements as provided in Iowa Code sections 124.411(1) and 902.8 were applicable.
On April 23, 2002, Fields pled guilty, pursuant to a plea bargain, to one count of delivery with the understanding that if he complied with the terms of a written cooperation agreement the State would dismiss the second count, not pursue the sentencing enhancements, and recommend probation.
The cooperation agreement, also executed on April 23, 2002, required Fields to assist investigating officers in gathering evidence as deemed necessary which would result in prosecutable cases as determined by the county attorney. The gathering of evidence contemplated by the agreement specifically included making purchases of controlled substances under the direction of law enforcement officers from three named individuals and, if possible, from twenty-two other named individuals. The agreement provided that only full and complete compliance with the terms of the agreement would satisfy Fields' obligations and if the conditions were not satisfactorily completed within sixty days, the agreement would become null and void. The agreement further provided that if Fields failed to comply, the State would recommend a fifteen-year prison sentence.
On September 26, 2002, the district court held a hearing at Fields' request to determine if he had substantially complied with the terms of the cooperation agreement. The hearing was held because the county attorney believed that Fields had not complied with the agreement.
At the hearing, Fields admitted that despite his assurances to law enforcement officers that he would be able to make purchases from the three named individuals in the agreement, he had not done so although he claimed he tried. He also asserted he had made four buys from other persons, but only one of the buys was from a person listed in the agreement. The law enforcement officers testified that while Fields kept in contact with them, he was not getting results. The officers were working with other informants during the same period who were able to make purchases of drugs. Fields did provide a list of people who were allegedly dealing in drugs, but the officers testified they already knew that information and the list did not provide anything new.
The district court concluded there was not any significant evidence of contact between Fields and the three primary individuals named in the cooperation agreement and therefore Fields had failed to substantially comply with the terms of the agreement. Subsequently, Fields was sentenced to fifteen years in prison on one count of delivery of methamphetamine with the penalty enhancement. The other count was dismissed.
Scope of Review
Our scope of review of the district court's decision is whether the court abused its discretion in deciding that Fields had breached the plea agreement. State v. Foy, 574 N.W.2d 337, 339 (Iowa 1998); State v. Blum, 560 N.W.2d 7, 9 (Iowa 1997). The trial court's decision upon conflicting evidence is controlling and reversal is only warranted upon a showing that the trial court abused its limited discretion. State v. Hovind, 431 N.W.2d 366, 368 (Iowa 1988); State v. LaPlant, 244 N.W.2d 240, 242 (Iowa 1976).
Discussion
The burden of proof was on the State to show Fields had failed to live up to his end of the bargain. State v. Barker, 476 N.W.2d 624, 628 (Iowa Ct.App. 1991). The State may not unilaterally withdraw from the agreement without providing some basis for its action or affording some sort of due process. See Id.
In this case, Fields was afforded a hearing on the State's assertion he had not complied with the terms of the cooperation agreement. While Fields testified he had tried, it is undisputed he did not make purchases from the three named primary individuals and, although Fields made four controlled purchases, only one of the purchases was from a person named on the secondary list.
We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion and had ample basis to find that Fields had not performed his obligations under the terms of the cooperation agreement. It is noted that while the State was free to pursue full prosecution against Fields, it did not pursue prosecution on the second count and the penalty enhancements associated with that count.
We accordingly affirm the judgment and sentence entered by the district court.