State v. Davis, 272 P.3d 745

Davis appeals his conviction for retail theft, a third-degree felony enhanced by prior convictions.
Plea agreement allegedly required the State to recommend sentencing concurrent with Davis County Jail time.
Trial court did not resolve a latent ambiguity in the term “concurrent” before accepting the plea.
At plea, defense stated the State would not oppose a sentence concurrent with the year Davis was serving in Davis County Jail.
The court later accepted the plea and proceeded to sentencing, not clarifying the ambiguity, prompting remand for proceedings to ascertain precise terms.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there a latent ambiguity in the plea term concurrent?	Davis argues ambiguity exists due to concurrent meaning.	Davis contends the term was unambiguous.	Yes, latent ambiguity existed that required clarification.
Did the trial court adequately resolve the ambiguity before sentencing?	Court failed to resolve ambiguity.	Court did not adequately ensure terms were clear.	No; remand for evidentiary hearing required.
Should the plea be reinterpreted in the defendant’s favor?	Ambiguity favors defendant; plea terms unclear.	Interpretation should align with plain language.	Plea re-clarification under remand; interpretive process to determine precise terms.

Bullard v. Department of Corrections, 949 P.2d 999 (Colo. 1997) (concurrent sentences defined; time-credit mechanics in concurrent term)
Gillmor v. Macey, 2005 UT App 351, 121 P.3d 57 (Utah 2005) (latent ambiguity possible when contract language appears clear)
Ward v. Intermountain Farmers Ass'n, 907 P.2d 264 (Utah 1995) (contract terms may have meanings beyond literal words)
State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381 (Utah Ct.App. 1997) (contract-law approach to interpreting plea agreements)
Kaufman v. State, 404 S.E.2d 763 (W.Va. 1991) (plea-agreement rights; importance of waivers and interpretation)