State v. Hon. hancock/jennifer Ferrell
347 P.3d 142
Ariz.2015Background
- Jennifer Ferrell, a registered Arizona medical-marijuana patient, was arrested and charged including DUI; she agreed to plead guilty to three charges in exchange for dismissal of others.
- The plea agreement included a standard county attorney probation condition prohibiting any marijuana use, even with an AMMA card (the "Marijuana Condition").
- Ferrell moved to strike the Marijuana Condition as preempted by the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act (AMMA); the trial court struck the condition and denied the State's motion to withdraw from the plea.
- The court of appeals reversed, criticizing the county's blanket inclusion of the condition but concluding the Marijuana Condition could be appropriate in a DUI case and reinstated it.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide (1) whether AMMA bars probation conditions prohibiting AMMA-compliant marijuana use, and (2) whether the State may withdraw from the plea after the court rejects such a condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Ferrell) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a trial court may condition probation on refraining from AMMA-compliant marijuana use | Marijuana Condition conflicts with AMMA: §36-2811(B) forbids penalizing or denying rights/privileges for lawful medical marijuana use | Court may impose probation conditions; parties can agree to such a term in plea bargains | Court: §36-2811(B) prohibits conditioning probation on AMMA-compliant use; the Marijuana Condition as applied to lawful medical use is illegal and must be rejected |
| Whether a defendant can waive AMMA protection by agreeing to such a plea term | Waiver of statutory rights cannot contravene clear public policy embodied in AMMA | Defendant can waive statutory/constitutional rights in plea agreements; parties may confer power to court via agreement | Court: Parties cannot bargain away rights that violate identifiable public policy; plea cannot confer authority the law prohibits, so waiver ineffective as to AMMA-compliant use |
| Whether the State may withdraw from the plea after the court rejects the Marijuana Condition | Withdrawal would punish AMMA-protected conduct and violate §36-2811(B) if sole basis is AMMA use | Plea form allows State to withdraw if court rejects any sentence/probation term; Ferrell agreed original charges would be reinstated | Court: State may not withdraw solely because the court will not bar AMMA-compliant use; but because the stricken term lawfully prohibited recreational (non-AMMA) use, the agreement’s withdrawal clause is operative and State could withdraw here |
| Whether the trial court erred in denying the State leave to withdraw from the plea agreement | Denial improperly forced State to adhere to an agreement altered by court and imperiled prosecution | Plea provision (form paragraph) waived double jeopardy by allowing reinstatement on rejection; State entitled to withdraw | Court: Because Ferrell agreed the State could withdraw if the court rejected a probation term, she waived double jeopardy for that circumstance; trial court erred in denying State’s withdrawal request |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. Superior Court, 130 Ariz. 209, 635 P.2d 497 (Ariz. 1981) (rejecting a plea after acceptance and setting for trial raises double jeopardy concerns)
- Dominguez v. Meehan, 140 Ariz. 329, 681 P.2d 912 (App. 1984) (adopted by Arizona Supreme Court; discusses withdrawal and defendant’s options when court rejects plea terms)
- Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1987) (defendant may waive double jeopardy by agreement to reinstate charges under certain conditions)
- Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238 (U.S. 1969) (a guilty plea constitutes a conviction once accepted by the court)
- State v. Superior Court, 125 Ariz. 575, 611 P.2d 928 (Ariz. 1980) (discussed the state’s authority to withdraw from plea agreements; Court limits this holding where it conflicts with double jeopardy)