Rojas v. State

⁴⁴¹ Bishop, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. On November 25,1981, Alex Rojas, the appellant, pleaded guilty to second degree rape in exchange for the State’s agreement to drop other charges and recommend a certain sentence. The Criminal Court of Baltimore (Pines, J.) accepted appellant’s plea and, following the State’s recommendation, imposed a ten-year suspended sentence with five years’ probation. Also in accord with the plea bargain, the court ordered as a condition of probation that Rojas, a resident alien from Venezuela, "leave the country within ninety days, and if the immigration authorities are intent on deporting him, then he will not oppose deportation, and that he will never return.” On appeal, Rojas asks, did the lower court act beyond its authority by ordering that he not oppose deportation?

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we find that the court did exceed its authority and therefore we vacate the sentence and guilty plea. THE FACTS During the early morning hours of July 12, 1981, the victim, age twelve, allowed appellant, age twenty-eight, to enter a Baltimore apartment shared by her mother and appellant’s girlfriend. After taking a shower, appellant called the victim into the bedroom, where he grabbed her, pulled off her clothes, and forcibly engaged in sex with her. Appellant was indicted for second degree rape, assault with intent to rape a minor, third and fourth degree sexual offenses, and assault.

He agreed to the following plea bargain, described by the assistant state’s attorney: "The plea agreement is that in exchange for a plea of guilty to the charge of second degree rape, the state will recommend to the Court that you receive a ten-year sentence, which is suspended, be placed for five years on probation with the special condition that you voluntarily give up your green ⁴⁴² card, your resident alien status, and leave the United States within ninety days forever, or that you do not oppose any efforts by the U.S. Government to deport you, and in any event never to return.” After determining that appellant’s plea was knowing, voluntary, and supported by the evidence, the lower court stated: "Gentlemen, the sentence of this Court is ... ten years to the Department of Corrections, suspended, five years probation. One of the conditions of his probation is that he surrender his green resident alien status, and that he leave the country within ninety days, and if the immigration authorities are intent on deporting him, then he will not oppose deportation, and that he will never return.” THE LAW Authority of the Lower Court Appellant contends that the lower court lacked authority to order him not to oppose deportation. 1 We agree. It is clear that the federal government has exclusive authority over ⁴⁴³ deportation proceedings. Thus since federal law grants appellant the right to be heard at a deportation proceeding, the State court sentence silencing him is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.

First, Congress has occupied the field of immigration law, excluding state control over deportation proceedings. Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 10 , 97 S.Ct. 2120, 2126 , 53 L.Ed.2d 63, 71 (1977); DeCanas v. BICA, 424 U.S. 351, 354 , 96 S.Ct. 933, 936 , 47 L.Ed. 2d 43, 48 (1976). Second, the lower court’s sentence based on the plea bargain silencing appellant would stand as an obstacle to attainment of Congress’s purpose of providing due process in deportation proceedings. United States v. Gasca-Kraft, 522 F.2d 149, 152 (9th Cir. 1975); Najafi v. Civiletti, 511 F. Supp. 236, 239 (1981).

Immigration and Naturalization Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1252 (b). Therefore, the section of the lower court’s sentence requiring appellant to not oppose deportation is preempted by the Supremacy Clause. U. S. Constitution, Art. 6, § 2; Maryland Constitution, Declaration of Rights, Art. 2. Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725, 746-47 , 101 S.Ct. 2114, 2129 , 68 L.Ed.2d 576, 595-96 (1981); Ward v. State, 280 Md. 485, 491-92 , 374 A.2d 1118, 1121 (1977).

The Plea Agreement Appellant breached his promise to leave the country, but the term of the plea agreement and probation order requiring his departure is unenforceable. The issue now is, what remedy should this Court provide when a material term of a sentence based upon a plea agreement is unenforceable? Should we vacate only the invalid part, leaving appellant with a suspended sentence, or should we vacate the entire sentence? We hold that when a material term of a sentence based upon a plea agreement is unenforceable, the appropriate remedy is to vacate the entire sentence and the corresponding plea agreement.

Since the Supreme Court officially sanctioned plea bargaining in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 , 92 S.Ct. ⁴⁴⁴ 495, 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971), numerous problems have been created which the courts have sought to solve in ways that protect the interests of the accused and society. United States v. McLaughlin, 509 F. Supp. 857 -58 (D. Md. 1981). The objective of these solutions is to promote fairness and equity between the parties. State v. Brockman, 277 Md. 687, 697 , 357 A.2d 376, 382-83 (1976); McCormick v. State, 38 Md. App. 442, 453 , 381 A.2d 694, 700-01 (1978); Note, Criminal Law — Enforcing Unfulfíllable Plea Bargaining Promises, 13 Wake Forest L. Rev. 842 , 846 (1977).

To help determine what is fair in the circumstances of each case, the courts have analogically employed some fundamental principles of contract law that seek to protect the reasonable expectations of the parties. E.g., Cooper v. United States, 594 F.2d 12, 15-18 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. Krasn, 614 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir. 1980); Jones v. Estelle, 584 F.2d 687 (5th Cir. 1978). See generally, Jones, Negotiation, Ratifícation, and Rescission of the Guilty Plea Agreement: A Contractual Analysis and Typology, 17 Duq. L. Rev. 591 (1978-79).

As the Fourth Circuit has observed: "The fairness of any voluntary agreement turns upon the parties’ expectations, first, that it will be honored by the other party and second, that redress is available when necessary in the courts. Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260-62 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971). With predictability and reliance as the foundation of plea bargaining itself, we must apply fundamental contract and agency principles to plea bargains as the best means to fair enforcement of the parties’ agreed obligation.” United States v. McIntosh, 612 F.2d 835, 837 (4th Cir. 1979). The bounds of plea agreement and contract law are not coterminous; we may determine what is fair in the circumstances by reference to public policy considerations outside the law of contract.

State v. Brockman, supra, 277 Md. 687, 697