Albuquerque Criminal Lawyer Blog

A recent case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals points out the intersection of contract law and criminal law. Specifically, the New Mexico Court of Appeals held that criminal plea agreements are enforceable just as other contracts. In so doing, the Court also set forth some unique principles that apply to plea agreements that in most cases would not hold in a standard contract dispute.

The facts of State v. Gomez are interesting in their own right but need not be discussed in great depth here. In a nutshell, the defendant entered into a series of 3 plea agreements. Under the agreements, it was agreed by the State that he would be exposed to a maximum of 9 years on the 3 pleas agreements that were to run concurrently. The district court judge misconstrued the pleas to allow up to 21 years in prison. Based upon the misconstruction of the plea and a violation of probation, the court sentenced the defendant to 21 years, 16 years of which were suspended, for a total of 5 years of incarceration.

The defendant appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed the sentence sending it back to district court for sentencing consistent with the written plea agreements. In doing so, the Court made some interesting findings regarding the application of contract law to plea agreements.

The court began by recognizing that a plea agreement is a form of contract and should be treated as such by the court. The law of contract suggests that ambiguities in language should be construed against the draftsman. In case of criminal plea agreements, ambiguity according to the Court of Appeals should be construed against the State and in favor of the defendant. In so doing, the Court must determine the reasonable understanding of the defendant as to the terms of the plea.

The Court set forth exceptions to this rule that would not otherwise apply to contracts. The Court stated that if the plea is ambiguous, the district court judge may resolve ambiguities on the record. With general contract law, agreements or understandings outside the contract itself are typically not admissible to change the terms of the written contract. With criminal plea agreements, unlike the typical contract dispute, the court record if any serves to amend the terms of the plea.

This issue will be most interesting in magistrate and municipal court proceedings throughout New Mexico that are non-record cases, meaning that they are not recorded. This will pose some interesting issues in case of misconstruction of pleas in these non-record courts.

Having said all this regarding construction and interpretation of plea agreements in the face of ambiguous terms, the Court of Appeals stated that there was no such ambiguity present in the plea agreements at hand. The court found that the plea agreements were clear and that the sentencing judge had done nothing, though he had full authority to do so, to amend the plea agreements on the record.

Finally, because the Court found that the plea agreements were unambiguous and that the plea agreements would stand as written, the defendant was entitled to specific performance of the agreements. Again, specific enforcement is drawn from the law of contracts which allows the non-breaching party to enforce the agreements as written.

It was found that the defendant did not wish to withdraw his plea which he might have done in case the district court had refused to accept the plea at the outset. Instead, the defendant chose to enforce the pleas as written through specific performance. As such, the Court of Appeals returned the case to the district court for sentencing in line of the written agreements.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

It is not unusual for a person to be arrested but never charged. It is also not unusual to be arrested and charged, but not convicted. When either of these situations arises, among the first concerns is the effect that the arrest will have on future employment.

The case-law and the EEOC make clear that with few exceptions employers are prohibited from blanket discrimination on the basis of arrests records alone. Such discrimination would constitute a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The reasoning behind this is clear.

It is has been well established that arrest records alone are not a reliable indicator that the person has actually committed a crime. In addition, and related to the first, it is clear also that discrimination based upon arrest records alone has a highly discriminatory impact on minorities, particularly blacks and Hispanics. As such, these practices are highly discouraged.

There are some exceptions to this prohibition. However, the exceptions are fairly narrow and the burdens are on the employer to prove a legitimate basis for using an arrest record to justify a hiring or other employment decision. The EEOC sets forth the business justification exception with a thorough discussion in its report, "Policy Guidance on the Consideration of Arrest Records in Employment Decisions under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Though business justifications may justify consideration of arrests records in hiring or other employment decisions, the burden is on the employer to show that the practice is necessary for its business operations. The employer must both show that the arrest indicates culpability and that the basis for the arrest has some rational relationship to the employment position at issue. If either is missing, then an arrest alone cannot form the basis of an adverse employment decision.

In New Mexico, the second criterion is perhaps the most problematic since many jobs here require certain levels of security clearance. However, other jobs might pose problems as well such as cashiering, banking, bookkeeping, accounting or other such jobs where the arrest was for theft or other crimes of dishonesty. There are certainly many other situations where the arrest if indicative of guilt would fall within the second prong of the business justification exceptions.

Though consideration of arrest in employment decisions may fall within the exception, there remain limitations. First, and foremost, there cannot be a blanket policy of excluding employment for anyone with an arrest record. This would most certainly violate the law. Instead, the employer must make additional inquiries into the circumstances of the arrest. The employer must then determine that the arrest in fact indicates guilt and that guilt of such an offense has some bearing on job performance. The burden is on the employer to prove both these elements.

All this being said (i.e. employers cannot have a blanket policy against hiring those with arrest records, the burden is on the employer, the burden is high and so on) the problem for employees in this position is that it may be hard to prove. More to the point, it may be very expensive to prove which may make obtaining an attorney quite difficult in the absence of some very compelling circumstances.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys

Travel restrictions are a standard condition of release in criminal cases. Travel restrictions are often imposed on defendants even in minor misdemeanor cases. These restrictions are often routinely set as a condition of release even when there is no need for them. In some cases, restrictions on travel can have very harmful and unnecessary consequences for the defendant and his or her family.

It is very important to address travel restrictions at the earliest opportunity which may be at the first appearance or arraignment depending upon the circumstances. It is also very important to inform your attorney if travel restrictions will pose problems. These problems can arise in a variety of ways.

Job duties and family duties are the most common basis for modifying the conditions of release to lessen travel restrictions. Many New Mexicans must travel outside the restricted areas for a variety of job and family related reasons.

The travel restrictions often limit travel to the county of the defendant's residence. Sometimes, the travel restrictions will be less strict allowing travel to adjacent counties or even the State of New Mexico as a whole. Travel limitations which restrict travel to the county of residence or adjacent counties can cause enormous work and family related problems.

Because New Mexico is fairly spread out, people often work in counties other than where they reside. In addition, kids often go to school, have doctor's appointments, daycare, family support structures and so on outside the county of residence or even beyond adjacent counties. In addition, there are many defendants that must travel outside New Mexico for work.

Other issues can arise as well such as the need to care for sick parents or other family members that are outside the county or even the state. There may also be training and education requirements that require travel. In short, there are countless reasons a defendant might be required to travel outside his or her county or New Mexico.

Travel restrictions can cause severe burdens on the defendant and the family. At worst, the defendant could lose his or her job or the kids cannot get to school on time or perhaps at all due to the inability to travel. At best, unnecessary travel restrictions are a burden that serve neither the alleged victim or the public.

Depending upon the circumstances, the nature of the charges, the defendants criminal history, the defendant's record of attending all required hearings and so on, many judges will entertain modifications to the travel restrictions to minimize harmful and unnecessary burdens on the defendant and his or her family.

Work and family duties will be considered carefully by most judges as it is clearly to the benefit of none for the defendant to lose his job, the family to lose financial resources, or the family to suffer unnecessary burdens and losses. On the other hand, judges are less likely to entertain vacation and recreational travel though in some cases even these may be accommodated so long as the prosecutor does not oppose.

The most important thing to take from this is that the court needs to know the burdens that travel restrictions will cause the defendant. This means informing your attorney if you have one, or telling the court directly if you do not. Otherwise, the conditions are imposed as a matter of course. Once in place, it is much harder to get them modified and will require a motion and likely a hearing with the defendant present in court.

Collins & Collins, P.C.
Albuquerque Attorneys