People v. Jasper
17 P.3d 807, 2001 WL 66231 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A trial court possesses the inherent authority to impose and enforce a plea cutoff deadline as part of its case management responsibilities, provided the parties have adequate notice of the deadline, and may reject an untimely plea unless the parties establish good cause for the delay.
Facts:
- Everett Jasper was charged with several criminal offenses, including first-degree assault.
- Before trial, the prosecution made several plea offers to Jasper, which he rejected.
- The trial court held a pretrial hearing on the Friday before the Monday trial was scheduled to begin.
- At the Friday hearing, neither the prosecution nor the defense informed the court that a plea agreement had been reached.
- On the morning of the trial, after the jury had been selected, the prosecution and Jasper reached a new plea agreement.
- This new agreement, offered for the first time, included the complete dismissal of the first-degree assault charge.
- The prosecutor attempted to present this new plea bargain to the court.
Procedural Posture:
- Everett Jasper was convicted by a jury in a Colorado trial court.
- Jasper, as appellant, appealed his convictions to the Colorado Court of Appeals (an intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that rejecting the plea agreement based solely on untimeliness was an arbitrary abuse of discretion.
- The prosecution (the People), as petitioner, sought and was granted a writ of certiorari from the Supreme Court of Colorado (the state's highest court) to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by rejecting a plea agreement solely on procedural grounds because the parties failed to tender it before a court-imposed deadline, without considering the merits of the agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bender
No. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by rejecting a plea agreement for failure to meet a court-imposed deadline. Trial courts have inherent case management authority, which includes setting reasonable deadlines to promote judicial efficiency and economy. This authority is not arbitrary and constitutes a valid exercise of independent judgment so long as two conditions are met: 1) the parties have adequate notice of the plea cutoff deadline, and 2) the court permits an exception for good cause. The burden rests on the parties, not the court, to establish that good cause exists for the untimely submission. Good cause requires exceptional circumstances, such as unforeseen events, and is not satisfied by a mere change of mind or last-minute renegotiation. In this case, the record supported the inference that the parties had notice of the deadline, and they failed to provide any good cause justification for the delay. Therefore, the trial court acted within its discretion to enforce its procedural deadline without needing to consider the substantive terms of the plea agreement.
Analysis:
This decision significantly strengthens a trial court's authority to manage its own docket by enforcing procedural rules in criminal cases. It draws a clear distinction between rejecting a plea on its substantive merits and rejecting it for procedural untimeliness. By establishing the 'notice and good cause' framework, the court balances judicial efficiency with fairness to the parties. The ruling serves as a strong deterrent against last-minute plea bargains that can disrupt court schedules, waste juror time, and delay the administration of justice, placing the onus on attorneys to negotiate in a timely manner.
