State v. Francis, 424 P.3d 156

Francis was charged with multiple felonies and a misdemeanor after allegedly assaulting his girlfriend; trial was set for June 15, 2015.
The State offered a plea the Friday before trial: plea to one third-degree felony with 24 months supervised probation and a 402 reduction after successful completion. Francis accepted and emailed the agreement.
On the morning of trial, before any plea was entered, the State returned an edited agreement and then rescinded the offer because the alleged victim objected.
Francis requested and obtained a continuance; he then moved to enforce the rescinded plea agreement on grounds of detrimental reliance. The district court denied enforcement.
Francis sought interlocutory review; the court of appeals certified the issue to the Utah Supreme Court, which affirmed the district court for reasons articulated in the opinion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a plea offer may be enforced before court acceptance when defendant claims to have accepted	Francis: His clear, unconditional acceptance created an enforceable agreement; plea bargains are treated like contracts	State: It may rescind an offer any time prior to court acceptance of a plea	The State may withdraw at any time before the defendant’s guilty plea or other action by the defendant constituting detrimental reliance; no enforceable plea here because no plea or detrimental reliance occurred
Whether Francis detrimentally relied on the rescinded offer such that enforcement is required	Francis: He was prejudiced—forewent Brady/Tiedemann investigation, was unprepared for trial, risk of losing a witness, and incurred extra expert costs	State: No such reliance; court mitigated prejudice by granting continuance; alleged harms are speculative or not shown	Court: Francis failed to show detrimental reliance or concrete prejudice; continuance removed any trial-preparation prejudice; enforcement not warranted

Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545 (1977) (no constitutional right to a plea agreement)
Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (plea agreements are essentially contractual but the contract analogy has limits)
State v. Patience, 944 P.2d 381 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (plea agreements often treated with contract principles but tempered in criminal context)
United States v. Vizcarrondo-Casanova, 763 F.3d 89 (1st Cir. 2014) (government free to withdraw offer until defendant performs or detrimentally relies)
Shields v. State, 374 A.2d 816 (Del. 1977) (State may withdraw plea offer prior to entry of guilty plea or detrimental reliance)