People v. Fritz, 2014 COA 108

In 1998 Mark Fritz was charged with multiple counts of sexual assault and aggravated incest for abusing his adopted daughter; he admitted extensive abuse and pleaded guilty to aggravated incest while nine other counts were dismissed.
Under a stipulated plea Fritz was sentenced to 16 years in prison (suspended), five years mandatory parole (allegedly), and 20 years of probation with sex-offense treatment.
The written plea agreement, Rule 11 advisement, and probation conditions emphasized 20 years probation and a suspended 16-year prison term; the written documents did not expressly state a five-year mandatory parole term.
In 2008 Fritz absconded to the Philippines, was extradited, and the prosecution sought to revoke probation. Fritz moved under Crim. P. 35(a) to withdraw his guilty plea and Crim. P. 85(c) to vacate an allegedly illegal sentence, arguing the five-year mandatory parole was unlawful and thus the plea was induced by an illegal term.
The postconviction court denied relief; Fritz later pleaded guilty to the probation-violation, stipulated to a new legal sentence (13 years with discretionary parole), and was resentenced under that new plea. He appealed the denial of his earlier motions, challenging the original plea and sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Fritz)	Defendant's Argument (People)	Held
Whether Fritz is entitled to withdraw his guilty plea because the plea included an illegal mandatory parole term	The original plea included a five-year mandatory parole that was illegal for offenses in the relevant period, so the plea was induced by an illegal promise and must be withdrawn	The mandatory parole was not an integral, material inducement because the written plea emphasized probation and a suspended sentence; thus withdrawal is not warranted	Court held Fritz was not entitled to withdraw his plea: the alleged mandatory-parole term did not materially induce the plea and was not integral to the agreement
Whether the appeal is moot now that Fritz has a new legal sentence from a later plea	Fritz seeks reversal of denial of his motions despite being resentenced; he argues original illegality warrants relief	People argue the new valid sentence supersedes the old one, so any ruling about the original sentence would have no practical effect	Court held the appeal is moot because Fritz obtained a new legal sentence that supersedes the original and he does not challenge the new sentence

Craig v. People, 986 P.2d 951 (Colo. 1999) (illegal sentence integral to plea requires allowing defendant to withdraw plea)
Delgado v. People, 105 P.3d 634 (Colo. 2005) (distinguishing types of illegal sentences and appropriate remedies)
Chae v. People, 780 P.2d 481 (Colo. 1989) (sentence recommendation that avoids imprisonment can be integral to plea inducement)
People v. Cooper, 27 P.3d 348 (Colo. 2001) (parole-period statutory context relevant to sentencing)
Moland v. People, 757 P.2d 137 (Colo. 1988) (consider both direct and collateral consequences when assessing mootness of conviction)
Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968) (a criminal case is moot only if no possibility of collateral legal consequences remains)