State v. Samulski
387 P.3d 595
Utah Ct. App.2016Background
- Samulski, a convicted felon, was charged with retaliation against a witness (felony) and possession of a dangerous weapon by a restricted person (misdemeanor) after threatening his ex‑girlfriend and being found with a prohibited knife.
- Plea agreement: Samulski would plead guilty to retaliation; the State would dismiss the misdemeanor, recommend "no prison time," and agree to reduce the felony to a misdemeanor if Samulski completed probation with no further violations.
- The court ordered a presentence investigation (PSI). AP&P filed an addendum recommending prison and attached a 2012 PSI for earlier charges.
- At sentencing defense counsel identified several PSI inaccuracies (address, income/taxes, alleged drug dependency, and gang affiliation). The court acknowledged corrections but made no explicit on‑the‑record findings resolving the objections.
- The prosecutor stated the victim and AP&P supported imprisonment but repeatedly affirmed the State was bound by the plea recommendation of no prison; the court imposed prison (indeterminate 0–5 years). Samulski appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement by recommending prison | Samulski: prosecutor’s comments urging prison amounted to a breach of the State’s promise to recommend no prison | State: prosecutor repeatedly affirmed it was bound to recommend no prison and only relayed victim/AP&P views; no breach | No breach — prosecutor maintained the promised recommendation and did not breach the agreement |
| Whether the district court failed to resolve PSI objections on the record | Samulski: court only acknowledged objections and did not make the specific factual findings required by statute/case law | State: court effectively accepted corrections for sentencing purposes and imposed sentence accordingly | Court failed to make required on‑the‑record findings; remand limited to resolving PSI objections on the record, but sentence affirmed |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not objecting to the alleged plea breach | Samulski: counsel should have objected more forcefully to prosecutor’s statements | State: there was no breach, so failing to raise a futile objection was reasonable | Not ineffective — no breach made objection futile |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not asking the court to make on‑the‑record PSI findings | Samulski: counsel should have requested explicit findings resolving PSI inaccuracies | State: counsel did object to inaccuracies; failing to request findings was an error cured by remand | Not ineffective — counsel’s omission is corrected by remand and does not show prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Garfield v. State, 662 P.2d 129 (Utah 1983) (promises by prosecutor that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
- United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011) (government did not breach plea agreement where it both recommended and presented relevant facts)
- Jaeger v. State, 973 P.2d 404 (Utah 1999) (sentencing judge must consider objections to PSI and make on‑the‑record findings as to accuracy and relevance)
- Veteto v. State, 6 P.3d 1133 (Utah 2000) (trial court must make specific findings on the record resolving contested PSI information)
- Waterfield v. State, 248 P.3d 57 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (accepting corrections without specific on‑record findings does not satisfy statutory duty)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance of counsel)