State v. Abelardo Dominguez Gomez, 153 Idaho 253

Gomez was indicted in 2008 for conspiracy to traffic cocaine and twelve counts of trafficking in cocaine.
A 2009 plea deal called for an eight-year fixed sentence with an open indeterminate term, in exchange for guilty pleas to three felonies.
At sentencing in 2009, the court imposed 25 years total (8 years determinate) and a $15,000 fine on each of the three counts and ordered restitution of $129,534.97.
The plea agreement did not explicitly mention restitution, though it included a clause binding the parties to its terms.
The Court of Appeals vacated the restitution order as breaching the plea agreement, prompting the State to seek Supreme Court review.
The Idaho Supreme Court analyzes whether unobjected-to error in a plea-based restitution issue is reviewable under Perry and whether the restitution breached the plea agreement.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restitution breached the plea agreement.	Gomez argues the plea agreement did not contemplate restitution, so the State breached.	State contends no breach since the contract is unambiguous and silent on restitution.	No breach; the contract is unambiguous and did not include restitution.
Whether unobjected restitution error is reviewable under Perry.	Gomez invokes Perry to review fundamental error despite no objection.	State argues Perry applies and requires three elements to show error; none shown.	Gomez's unobjected claim fails Perry’s three-part test; no fundamental error.
Whether the district court erred by ordering restitution under I.C. § 37-2732(k) without it being in the plea.	Restitution was not contemplated in the plea, so should not have been ordered.	Restitution can be ordered under § 37-2732(k) after conviction, independent of the plea terms.	Restitution properly authorized under statute; district court did not err.

State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209 (2010) (establishes three-part test for unobjected-to errors in criminal cases)
State v. Jafek, 141 Idaho 71 (2005) (fundamental error review exceptions to preservation rules)
State v. Peterson, 148 Idaho 593 (2010) (contractual breach analysis in plea agreements; governs interpretation of plea terms)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plea-based promises as contract-like protections)
State v. Peregrina, 261 P.3d 815 (2011) (application of Perry to unobjected-to errors in appellate review)