State of Iowa v. Andrew James Lopez, 2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 98

Background

Defendant Andrew Lopez pled guilty to child endangerment causing bodily injury pursuant to a plea agreement in which the State and defense jointly recommended a deferred judgment and probation (with conditions and no-contact orders).
A presentence report recommended a five-year suspended prison term with halfway-house placement; the prosecutor recited the plea agreement at the plea and sentencing hearings.
At sentencing the prosecutor introduced two photographs of the child-victim’s injuries (not previously in the court file) and used them on cross-examination of several defense witnesses to emphasize the severity of the offense.
The child’s father gave a victim-impact statement; the child’s court‑appointed guardian ad litem (GAL) also made a victim‑impact statement. Defense counsel made no objections to the photos, the cross‑examination using them, or the victim statements.
The court imposed an up‑to‑five‑year prison sentence. The Iowa Supreme Court held the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by gratuitously introducing and using the photographs in a way that undercut the agreed recommendation, found prejudice presumed for counsel’s failure to object, and vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge; it also held victim‑impact statements from a parent and a properly designated GAL are permissible so long as the prosecutor did not solicit the GAL to circumvent the plea agreement.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lopez)	Held
Whether victim‑impact statements by both the victim’s father and the GAL violated the plea agreement	Victim statutes permit victim statements; the State did not solicit the GAL and therefore did not breach the plea agreement	Two statements effectively created multiple victim statements for the child and undercut the plea recommendation	Court: Parent (as immediate family member) may give a statement; a GAL may speak for a child if properly designated; statements are permitted unless the prosecutor solicits a GAL statement to undermine the plea recommendation
Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by introducing and using photos of the child’s injuries at sentencing	Introduction of relevant evidence at sentencing is permitted under sentencing statutes; prosecutor recited the agreed recommendation	Photos were gratuitously offered and used on cross to signal incarceration was appropriate, undermining the agreed recommendation	Court: Prosecutor breached the plea agreement by gratuitously introducing and using the photos to undermine probation; mere recitation of the plea did not cure the breach
Whether defense counsel’s failure to object at sentencing constitutes ineffective assistance	No breach occurred, so no duty to object	Counsel had a duty to object to a breach; failure to object was deficient and prejudiced Lopez	Court: When counsel fails to object to a prosecutor’s breach of a plea agreement, prejudice is presumed; counsel was ineffective for not objecting
Remedy for the breach	N/A	Request to withdraw plea or be resentenced; primarily sought resentencing by a different judge	Court: Vacated sentence and remanded for resentencing before a different judge; ordered specific performance of the plea recommendation (i.e., prosecutor must honor the agreement on remand)

Key Cases Cited

Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor must fulfill promises that induce a guilty plea; remedy may include withdrawal of plea or specific performance)
Bearse v. State, 748 N.W.2d 211 (Iowa 2008) (Iowa precedent requiring prosecutors to honor plea recommendations and condemning conduct that undercuts agreed recommendations)
Horness v. State, 600 N.W.2d 294 (Iowa 1999) (prosecutor breached plea by implying alternative, harsher recommendation; remedy vacatur and resentencing)
Fannon v. State, 799 N.W.2d 515 (Iowa 2011) (prosecutor’s statements revealing a preference for harsher sentence breached plea; remand for resentencing by new judge)
United States v. Benchimol, 471 U.S. 453 (1985) (federal context holding prosecutors need not "enthusiastically" endorse agreed sentences absent specific promise — distinguished by the Iowa Court)
State v. Urista, 293 P.3d 738 (Kan. 2013) (prosecutor’s unprovoked negative comments at sentencing effectively undermined the plea recommendation)