State v. Carter, 349 P.3d 764

In 2012 Carter pled guilty in two consolidated cases to distributing or arranging to distribute a controlled substance (second-degree felonies) after plea bargains in which the State agreed to drop drug-free-zone enhancements and not file certain controlled-buy cases.
Plea agreements required a presentence investigation and were reduced to written plea forms that stated all promises were contained in the written agreements.
At the plea hearing, defense counsel stated the defense understood the State also agreed not to recommend prison and to stipulate to release on recognizance; the substitute prosecutor (without the original prosecutor present) did not have those provisions in his copies.
The court recessed, the substitute prosecutor conferred with the original prosecutor, and upon reconvening the prosecutor confirmed only the RN release stipulation; defense counsel did not press the no-prison claim.
At sentencing nine months later the State recommended prison; defense counsel did not object to that recommendation; the court imposed two consecutive 1–15 year prison terms.
On appeal Carter argued (1) the State breached the plea agreement by recommending prison (reviewed for plain error), (2) ineffective assistance for failing to object, and (3) prejudice from judge reassignment; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Carter's Argument	Held
Whether State breached plea by recommending prison such that plain error occurred	No clear promise not to seek prison; written pleas contain all promises; no record of a no-prison promise	Plea bargain included a no-prison recommendation; court knew Carter expected no recommendation of prison	No plain error: no evidence State promised not to seek prison and court clarified terms at plea hearing
Whether trial counsel was ineffective for not objecting to State’s prison recommendation	Counsel’s failure was not deficient—there was no viable objection and objection would be futile; plausible strategy	Counsel’s failure deprived Carter of negotiated benefit and was constitutionally deficient	Not ineffective: strong presumption of competence; plausible strategic reasons; no deficient performance shown
Whether reassignment of judge between plea and sentencing created exceptional circumstances or prejudice	Judge reassignment is routine and does not create exceptional circumstances; original judge warned Carter of possible sentence	Reassignment prejudiced Carter because new judge imposed prison contrary to expectations	No exceptional-circumstances; two judges constitute same judicial office and Carter suffered no prejudice

State v. Garfield, 552 P.2d 129 (Utah 1976) (a prosecutor’s unequivocal plea promise must be honored)
State v. Bero, 645 P.2d 44 (Utah 1982) (court should ensure plea terms are understood; reasonable belief is not equal to a promise)
State v. Dunn, 850 P.2d 1201 (Utah 1993) (plain-error standard and preservation rules)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two-part ineffective-assistance test for deficient performance and prejudice)
State v. Tennyson, 850 P.2d 461 (Utah Ct. App. 1993) (need only articulate a plausible strategic explanation for counsel’s conduct)