Flores-Heredia v. People
2017 CO 64
Colo.2017Background
- In 1990 Jesus Flores-Heredia pled guilty to inducement and conspiracy to sell/possess with intent to sell a Schedule II drug and received a one-year deferred judgment.
- He successfully completed the deferred judgment in 1991, but no court entered an order withdrawing his plea or dismissing the charge under section 18-1.3-102(2).
- In 2014 Flores-Heredia moved under Colo. Crim. P. 32(d) to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel.
- The district court, noting no formal order had been entered in 1991, signed an order withdrawing the plea and dismissing the charge under the statute and then denied the Rule 32(d) motion as there was no plea left to withdraw.
- The court of appeals transferred the case to the Colorado Supreme Court, which affirmed the district court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a plea is withdrawn when a deferred judgment is successfully completed if no court order was entered | Flores-Heredia: No formal order was entered, so the plea was never withdrawn and is available to be withdrawn under Crim. P. 32(d). | People: Section 18-1.3-102(2) mandates withdrawal and dismissal upon completion; it occurs by operation of law even without a court order. | The court held the statute effects withdrawal and dismissal by operation of law when conditions are met. |
| Whether Crim. P. 32(d) authorizes withdrawal of a plea that has already been withdrawn by operation of law | Flores-Heredia: Even if withdrawn by operation of law, Rule 32(d) should permit withdrawal of that plea (to allow review for ineffective assistance). | People: Rule 32(d) requires an existing plea to withdraw; it does not authorize withdrawing an already-withdrawn plea. | The court held Rule 32(d) applies only to an existing plea and does not authorize withdrawing a plea already withdrawn by operation of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Carbajal, 198 P.3d 102 (Colo. 2008) (deferred-judgment protections and expiration operate by law; court lacked authority to enforce conditions after expiration)
- People v. Simonds, 113 P.3d 762 (Colo. 2005) (deferred judgment expires by operation of law when the deferred period ends)