People v. Navarroli
521 N.E.2d 891, 121 Ill. 2d 516, 118 Ill. Dec. 414 (1988)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant's due process rights are not implicated by a prosecutor's withdrawal from a plea agreement, and thus the defendant is not entitled to specific performance of the agreement, if the defendant has not yet entered a guilty plea in reliance on that agreement, even if the defendant has already performed other obligations under the deal.
Facts:
- Enricho Navarroli was indicted on charges of unlawful possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.
- Navarroli and the State's Attorney engaged in plea negotiations.
- Navarroli claimed they reached an agreement where he would act as an informant in exchange for the State reducing the charges and recommending probation and a fine.
- Acting on this belief, Navarroli assisted law enforcement officials by working as an undercover agent, which led to the arrest of another individual and the seizure of drugs and firearms.
- The dissent notes Navarroli suffered a heart attack during his undercover work but continued to cooperate after recovering.
- After Navarroli had provided his assistance, the State's Attorney refused to reduce the charges, denying the existence and terms of the claimed agreement.
- Navarroli never entered a guilty plea in reliance on the alleged agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- Enricho Navarroli was charged by indictment in the circuit court of Peoria County (trial court) with two drug offenses.
- Navarroli filed a motion in the circuit court to compel the State to carry out a claimed plea agreement.
- The circuit court found that an agreement existed and ordered 'specific performance' of it.
- The State, as appellant, appealed the circuit court's order to the appellate court.
- The appellate court reversed the circuit court's order.
- The Illinois Supreme Court granted Navarroli, as appellant, leave to appeal.
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 the State's refusal to honor a plea agreement, after the defendant has performed their side of the bargain but before the defendant has entered a guilty plea, violate the defendant's due process rights, thereby entitling the defendant to specific performance?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Ward
No. The prosecutor’s denial of an agreement and refusal to carry out the claimed bargain did not deprive the defendant of due process. A plea bargain is without constitutional significance until a defendant enters a guilty plea in reliance upon it. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Mabry v. Johnson, the court reasoned that a plea bargain is a 'mere executory agreement' that does not deprive an accused of liberty or any other constitutionally protected interest until it is embodied in the judgment of a court. Because Navarroli had not pleaded guilty, he was not deprived of his liberty in a fundamentally unfair manner; his constitutional right to a fair trial remains fully intact as a remedy. The court distinguished this case from People v. Starks, where a defendant surrendered a specific constitutional right (the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination) by taking a polygraph, finding that Navarroli's cooperation did not involve the surrender of any such constitutionally protected interests.
Dissenting - Justice Clark
Yes. Enforcing the plea bargain is constitutionally required where the defendant has fully performed his side of the bargain to his significant detriment. This case is distinguishable from Mabry v. Johnson because Navarroli did not merely make a promise; he provided actual, risky performance that benefited the State. The majority's decision ignores that Navarroli lost his time, labor, safety, and a significant bargaining chip, which implicates his constitutionally protected liberty and property rights. The status quo cannot be restored simply by proceeding to trial, as the State has already reaped the benefits of Navarroli's cooperation. Furthermore, as a matter of public policy, this decision will undermine the plea bargaining process by making prosecutors' promises unenforceable, discouraging future defendants from cooperating with law enforcement.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a bright-line rule in Illinois, mirroring federal precedent from Mabry v. Johnson, that the constitutional trigger for enforcing a plea agreement is the entry of a guilty plea. It significantly limits a defendant's ability to claim 'detrimental reliance' based on cooperation or other non-plea actions, thereby strengthening the prosecutor's position to withdraw from agreements before a plea is entered. The ruling distinguishes between reliance that involves surrendering a specific constitutional right (which may be enforceable) and general cooperation (which is not). This creates a clear, albeit harsh, standard that prioritizes the finality of the guilty plea over the fairness of enforcing pre-plea bargains.
Unlock the full brief for People v. Navarroli