Rios v. State
2009 Md. App. LEXIS 76, 974 A.2d 366, 186 Md. App. 354 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A mere inquiry about the possibility of different terms during contract negotiations, including plea bargains, does not constitute a counter-offer or rejection of an existing offer, thereby leaving the original offer open for acceptance. A trial court's denial of a motion to enforce a plea agreement is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine because it satisfies the four elements of the doctrine.
Facts:
- Jeffrey Rios was charged with eleven criminal offenses, including reckless endangerment, in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
- Rios's counsel, Ronald L. Schwartz, engaged in plea negotiations with the Assistant State’s Attorney (the prosecutor) for approximately two weeks.
- On April 8, 2008, the prosecutor offered Rios an Alford plea to reckless endangerment with time served, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges, and Schwartz informed the prosecutor he would discuss it with Rios.
- After meeting with Rios, Schwartz informed the prosecutor that Rios agreed to accept the Alford plea offer.
- On April 22, 2008, Schwartz contacted the prosecutor and asked, "Would you consider allowing a nolo plea to reckless?"
- The prosecutor informed Schwartz that he could not agree to a nolo plea and was under pressure from police and his superiors not to make any plea offer.
- Schwartz then immediately informed the prosecutor that Rios would accept the original Alford plea offer.
- Later that week, the prosecutor called Schwartz and informed him that no plea offer would be made.
Procedural Posture:
- Jeffrey Rios was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County (trial court) with eleven criminal offenses.
- Rios, through his counsel, Ronald L. Schwartz, entered into plea negotiations with the Assistant State's Attorney.
- Rios filed a "Motion to Enforce Plea Agreement and to Dismiss All Counts of the Indictment Except for the Tenth Count" in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County.
- On June 13, 2008, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County held a hearing and denied Rios’s motion, finding that the parties never reached an agreement because it viewed Schwartz's inquiry as a counter-offer.
- On July 7, 2008, Rios filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Special Appeals of Maryland (intermediate appellate court).
- On July 8, 2008, the Circuit Court continued the trial pending the resolution of Rios’s appeal.
- The State, as appellee, included a motion to dismiss Rios’s interlocutory appeal in its brief, citing the final judgment rule.
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 an attorney's inquiry to a prosecutor about the possibility of a different plea term, such as a "nolo contendere" plea instead of an "Alford" plea, constitute a counter-offer that rejects the original plea offer, or is it merely an inquiry that leaves the original offer open for acceptance, thereby forming a binding plea agreement upon subsequent acceptance?
Opinions:
Majority - Meredith, Judge
Yes, an attorney's inquiry about a different plea term does not constitute a counter-offer, and a binding plea agreement was formed. The court first addressed the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal, holding that the appeal was allowed under the collateral order doctrine. The court found that the circuit court's decision denying enforcement of the plea agreement met all four elements of the collateral order doctrine: it conclusively determined the disputed question of agreement, resolved an important issue (potential for trial avoidance), was separate from the merits of guilt/innocence, and would be effectively unreviewable after a final judgment. On the merits, the court applied standard principles of contract law, particularly Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 39, which distinguishes a "mere inquiry regarding the possibility of different terms" from a counter-offer. The court found that Schwartz’s question, "Would you consider allowing a nolo plea to reckless?" was merely an inquiry, not a counter-offer that rejected the prosecutor’s standing Alford plea offer. Therefore, Schwartz's subsequent communication of Rios’s acceptance, before the prosecutor withdrew the offer, was effective, forming a binding plea agreement that the State was obligated to honor (subject to court approval).
Analysis:
This case clarifies the application of contract law principles to plea negotiations, specifically distinguishing between a mere inquiry and a counter-offer. By holding that an inquiry does not automatically terminate a standing offer, the court provides crucial guidance for attorneys in plea bargaining, promoting flexibility without forfeiture of original offers. Furthermore, the decision solidifies the use of the collateral order doctrine for immediate appellate review of plea agreement enforcement issues, underscoring the legal system's commitment to fairness and the efficiency of avoiding unnecessary trials when a plea agreement has been validly formed. This ensures that a defendant's right to enforce a plea agreement is not lost by being forced to proceed to trial.
