Made available by Touch N' Go Systems, Inc. and
This was Gottstein but needs to change to what?
406 G Street, Suite 210, Anchorage, AK 99501
(907) 274-7686 fax 274-9493

You can of the Alaska Court of Appeals opinions.

Touch N' Go, the DeskTop In-and-Out Board makes your office run smoother. Visit Touch N' Go's Website to see how.


Jennifer Lynn Ririe v Municipality of Anchorage (9/11/2020) ap-2677

Jennifer Lynn Ririe v Municipality of Anchorage (9/11/2020) ap-2677

                                                                                             NOTICE
  

                    The text of this opinion can be corrected before the opinion is published in the                                                   

                   Pacific Reporter.   Readers are encouraged to bring typographical or other  

                                                                                                                                                                             

                   formal errors to the attention of the Clerk of the Appellate Courts:                                                                            



                                                            303 K Street, Anchorage, Alaska  99501  

                                                                               Fax:  (907) 264-0878  

                                                               E-mail:  corrections @ akcourts.us.  

                                                                                                                                             



                            IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF ALASKA                                                                       



JENNIFER  LYNN  RIRIE,  

                                                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                      Court of Appeals No. A-13039  

                                                                                                                                                                                           

                                                               Appellant,                                        Trial Court No. 3AN-15-01634 CR  



                                               v.  

                                                                                                                                                                      

                                                                                                                                         O P I N I O N  

                                          

MUNICIPALITY OF ANCHORAGE,  



                                                                                                                                                                                     

                                                               Appellee.                                           No. 2677 - September 11, 2020  



                                                                                                                                  

                               Appeal   from  the   District   Court,   Third   Judicial   District,  

                                                                                                         

                               Anchorage, Gregory J. Motyka, Judge.  



                                                                                                                                                          

                               Appearances:                              Megan               M.         Rowe,              Denali             Law           Group,  

                                                                                                                                                       

                               Anchorage,  for  the  Appellant.                                             Sarah  E.  Stanley,  Assistant  

                                                                                                                                     

                               Municipal   Prosecutor,   and   Rebecca                                                       A.        Windt   Pearson,  

                                                                                                                                                   

                               Municipal Attorney, Anchorage, for the Appellee.  



                                                                                                                                                      

                               Before:   Allard, Chief Judge, and Wollenberg and Harbison,  

                                                  

                               Judges.  



                                               

                               Judge ALLARD.  



                               D.R., the ten-month-old son of Jennifer Lynn Ririe, was brought to the                                                                                               



emergency room for injuries on the front and back of his head and his ear.                                                                                                      As a result,     



the Office of Children's Services (OCS) instituted a child-in-need-of-aid case for                                                                                                                  


----------------------- Page 2-----------------------

                                                                                                                            

Ririe's three children, and the Municipality of Anchorage instituted a criminal case  



                      

against Ririe.  



                                                                                                                   

                    The Municipality and Ririe entered into a deferred sentencing agreement,  



                                                                                                                  

under which Ririe would plead guilty to child neglect under Anchorage Municipal  



                                                                                                                              

Code 08.10.040(B)(3)  but would  be allowed  to  withdraw  her  plea  and  have her  



                                                                                                    

criminal         case      dismissed          if   she      complied         with       OCS's        requirements            and  



                                                                                                                   

recommendations.                Ririe's  child-in-need-of-aid  case  was  subsequently  dismissed  



                                                                                                                              

without opposition from OCS, but the Municipality nevertheless argued that Ririe had  



                                                                                                                              

not complied with OCS requirements and recommendations and therefore could not  



                                                                                                                            

withdraw her plea. The district court agreed with the Municipality and sentenced Ririe  



                                                         

pursuant to the deferred sentencing agreement.  



                                                                                                                              

                    Ririe now appeals, arguing that the district court erred in finding that she  



                                                                                                                            

was in violation of the deferred sentencing agreement.  For the reasons explained here,  



                                                                                                                                

we agree with Ririe.  We accordingly vacate the court's order and remand this case to  



                                                                                                                                    

the district court for withdrawal of Ririe's plea and dismissal of Ririe's criminal case.  



                        

          Factual background  



                                                                                                                

                    In  February  2015,  D.R.  was  taken  to  the  hospital  with  unexplained  



                                                                                                                          

injuries. OCS took emergency custody of him and his two siblings and filed the child- 



                                                                                                                           

in-need-of-aid action.  The Municipality charged Ririe with child abuse under AMC  



08.10.030(B).  



                                                                                                                             

                    In May 2015, OCS provided Ririe with a family case plan.  The case plan  



                                                                                                                             

laid out goals that she was required to meet, as well as the actions she needed to take  



                                                                                                                                

to meet those goals.  Among the stated goals was that Ririe "understand[] her role as  



                                                              - 2 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 3-----------------------

                                                                                                                             

a protective caregiver to her children and [be] aligned with them," as well as have "the  



                                                                                                                       

knowledge and skills to fulfill her caregiving responsibility."   OCS would support  



                                                                                                                    

these  goals  by  referring  Ririe  to  a  "parenting  assessment,"  providing  collateral  



                                                                                                                 

information  for  the  assessment,  and  helping  her  identify  appropriate  services  to  



                                                                                                                               

address any recommendations that came out of it.  Ririe was directed to complete the  



                                                          

parenting assessment and follow the recommendations.  



                                                  

          The deferred sentencing agreement  



                                                                                                                      

                    In  February 2016,  Ririe and  the Municipality entered  into  a deferred  



                                                                                                                          

sentencing agreement. Under theagreement, Ririe pleaded guilty to child neglect under  



                                                                                                                      

AMC 08.10.040(B)(3), and sentencing was deferred for ninemonths. If Ririe followed  



                                                                                                                

the terms of the agreement, then Ririe could withdraw her plea, and the Municipality  



                                                                                                                                  

would dismiss her case.  If she failed to abide by the conditions, she would receive a  



                                          

sentence of 180 days with 180 days suspended.  



                                                                                                                            

                    One of the conditions in the deferred sentencing agreement was that Ririe  



                                                                                                                            

"[c]omply with OCS requirements/recommendations, including any case/safety plan  



                                                                                                               

in effect."  This provision of the deferred sentencing agreement stated:  



                                                                                                         

                    Defendant agrees to abide by the following additional conditions:  



                                                  

                    a.     Comply  with  OCS  requirements/recommendations,  

                                                                                                        

                    including any case/safety plan in effect.  Compliance with  

                                                                                                   

                    OCS includes, but is not limited to, the following:  



                                                                                                            

                              i.  Contact and communication with D.R. . . . only as  

                                                                                           

                    authorized/approved/recommended by OCS.  



                                                                                                        

                              ii.  Report without delay to OCS any injuries to D.R.  

                                                                                                

                    while D.R. is in Defendant's custody or care, or otherwise  

                                                                                                

                    as  soon  as  possible if  Defendant observes  or  otherwise  

                                                                               

                    becomes aware of any such injuries.  



                                                              -  3 -                                                        2677
  


----------------------- Page 4-----------------------

                                                                                                                              

The only other condition that Ririe was required to meet was payment of a $250 fee  



           

to the Municipality.  



                                                                                                                   

                    In a separate email to Ririe's defense attorney, the assistant municipal  



                                                                                                                             

prosecutor appeared to indicate that the Municipality would dismiss the criminal case  



                                                                 

if OCS closed its case.  The email stated:  



                                                                               

                    [I]f we get to a point during the DSA [deferred sentencing  

                                                                                                      

                    agreement] term where OCS has fully closed its case where  

                                                                                                         

                    your  client  and  D.R.  are  concerned   -  and  she  has  

                                                                                                      

                    otherwise  fully  complied  with  all  of  her   other  DSA  

                                                                                                      

                    [deferred sentencing agreement] conditions - then MOA  

                                                                                                   

                    [the Municipality] upon confirming all of that will proceed  

                                                                                   

                    with filing a dismissal at that juncture.  



                                                          

          The child-in-need-of-aid case is dismissed  



                                                                                                                             

                    Seven months later, in September 2016, thechild-in-need-of-aid case was  



                                                                                                                      

dismissed upon Ririe's unopposed motion.  The dismissal order noted that OCS did  



                                                                                                                       

not oppose the dismissal and  the  court  found  there was  "good  cause to  dismiss  



                                                                                                                            

consistent with the welfare of the children and family." Ririe later requested that OCS  



                                                                                                                       

overturn the substantiated findings of "mental injury and physical abuse"  entered  



                                                                                                            

against her. OCS granted her request and changed the findings to "not substantiated."  



                                                                                                                              

                    Despite the uncontested dismissal of the child-in-need-of-aid case, the  



                                                                                                                         

Municipality did not dismiss  the criminal case.  Instead, it argued that Ririe was in  



                                                                                                               

violation of the deferred sentencingagreementbecause (according to the Municipality)  



                                                                                                                        

she had not fully complied with  the OCS requirements.   The Municipality alleged  



                                                                                                                                    

multiple violations of the OCS requirements, but only two are relevant to this appeal:  



                                                                                                                  

(1) that Ririe failed to alert OCS regarding her psychological evaluation (a component  



                                                              - 4 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 5-----------------------

                                                                                                                               

of the parenting assessment) so that OCS could provide collateral information to the  



                                                                                                                          

evaluator; and  (2)  that Ririe failed  to  obtain  a mental health  evaluation  of  D.R.'s  



                                                                                         

sibling, who was believed to have possibly injured D.R.  



                                                                                                                         

                    The district court held an evidentiary hearing across two days in August  



                                                                                                                               

and  October  2017.              Ririe and  her  former  OCS  caseworker  testified  regarding the  



                                                                                   

parenting assessment and the sibling's mental health evaluation.  



                                                                   

          Testimony regarding the parenting assessment  



                                                                                                                            

                    The caseworker testified that, early in the case, she told Ririe that Ririe  



                                                                                                                               

had to complete apsychological evaluation as part of the parenting assessment and that  



                                                                                                                                 

OCS needed to provide collateral information to aid in the evaluation.  According to  



                                                                                                                        

the caseworker, Ririe's child-in-need-of-aid attorney set up the evaluation without  



                                                                                                                  

proper notice to OCS.  As a result, OCS was unable to provide collateral information  



                                                                                                                               

to the evaluator. The caseworker testified that this meant that the evaluator did not ask  



                                                                                                                     

some specific questions tailored to Ririe that OCS would have wanted the evaluator  



                                                                                                                       

to ask and that the evaluation - although completed - did not serve the purpose  



                             

OCS wanted it to serve.  



                                                                                                                     

                    The caseworker  acknowledged  that the evaluation  and  the parenting  



                                                                                                                  

assessment  were  considered  complete  months  before  the  deferred  sentencing  



                                                                                                                      

agreement was entered into. The record also shows that Ririe was not told to complete  



                                                                                                                   

another psychological evaluation or told that the parenting assessment was considered  



                     

incomplete.  



                                                                                                                

                    Ririe testified that she was unaware of any issue relating to OCS's ability  



                                                                                                                       

to provide collateral information to the evaluator.   Ririe testified that her attorney  



                                                                                                                               

arranged for the evaluation to occur in a conference room at her attorney's office, and  



                                                              -  5 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 6-----------------------

Ririe   signed   a   release   of   information   and   gave   it   to   her   attorney.     It   was  her  



understandingfromher attorney that OCS had, in fact, provided collateralinformation,                                                                                                                



                                                                                                                                                                   1  

although she conceded she had no direct knowledge of this.                                                                                                              



                  Testimony regarding the sibling's mental health evaluation  

                                                                                                                                                                                        



                                   The caseworker testified that Ririe had told her that one of D.R.'s siblings  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                 



(who was a toddler) had caused D.R.'s injuries.  Ririe said she had started to look into  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



getting the sibling a mental health evaluation, and the caseworker agreed that this was  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                



an appropriate way to respond.  The caseworker acknowledged that Ririe scheduled  

                                                                                                                                                                                           



the evaluation, and the mental health agency communicated with the caseworker and  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



requested collateral information from her.  But the caseworker testified that she later  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                         



received multiple calls regarding Ririe either not showing up to the evaluation  or  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



rescheduling the evaluation and then cancelling.  According to the caseworker, the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



evaluation was still not done at the time the child-in-need-of-aid case was dismissed.  

                                                                                                                                                                                            



                                   Ririe  testified  that  there  was  an  evaluation  and  that  the  agency  had  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                          



determined that the sibling did not meet the agency's qualifications for therapy.  Ririe  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



agreed with this determination because the sibling's behavior  had improved in the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            



interim.   Ririe acknowledged that she missed multiple appointments before finally  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                   



bringing  the  sibling  in  for  the  evaluation.                                                                           Ririe  also  provided  a  letter  from  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           



evaluating agency confirming that Ririe met with its staff in July 2016 and that "[b]ased  

                                                                                                                                                                                                               



         1        In her later motion for reconsideration, Ririe attached an email from her therapist to                                                                                                                        



the caseworker dated months before the deferred sentencing agreement.                                                                                                                      In the email, the                 

therapist acknowledged having received and reviewed a packet of collateral information                                                                                       

from OCS, and she stated that this collateral information did not change her assessment of                                                                                                        

Ririe's parenting abilities.                 



                                                                                                            -  6 -                                                                                                       2677
  


----------------------- Page 7-----------------------

                                                                                                                              

on the information [Ririe] provided at that time, [it] declined to intake [the sibling] into  



                  

services."  



                                                                                                                       

                    When the caseworker was shown this letter, she testified that it matched  



                                                                                                                             

her  view that no true evaluation was done because Ririe had not thought one was  



                  

necessary.  



                                                                                   

          The district court's order and Ririe's motion for reconsideration  



                                                                                                                 

                    Based on thetestimony elicited attheevidentiaryhearing, theMunicipality  



                                                                                                                               

argued that Ririe was in violation of the deferred sentencing agreement because she  



                                                                                                                            

had   not fully complied with the OCS requirements and recommendations.                                                    Ririe  



                                                                                                                      

argued that she had complied with her OCS case plan, as evidenced by the dismissal  



                                                                                                                       

of  her  OCS  case,  and  she asserted  that she was  not in  violation  of  the deferred  



                                    

sentencing agreement.  



                                                                                                                       

                    The district court found that both Ririe and the caseworker were credible,  



                                                                                                          

but that Ririe's view of her compliance was irrelevant, and it was the caseworker's and  



                                                                                                                           

OCS's view of Ririe's compliance that was material.  The court issued a written order,  



                                                                                                                               

finding that Ririe was in violation of the deferred sentencing agreement because she  



                                                                                                                       

had failed to give OCS the chance to provide collateral information to the agencies  



                                                                                                                   

who completed the mental health evaluations of Ririe and D.R.'s sibling.  



                                                                                                                             

                    Ririe moved for reconsideration. In her motion for reconsideration, Ririe  



                                                                                                                      

argued that completing the parenting assessment could not be considered a condition  



                                                                                                                 

of  the deferred  sentencing agreement because that OCS  requirement was  already  



                                                                                                                              

complete by the time the parties entered into the deferred sentencing agreement.  



                                                                                                                            

                    Ririe  also  argued  that  she  had  substantially  complied  with  the  OCS  



                                                                                                                               

requirement that she get a mental health evaluation for D.R.'s sibling.  She pointed out  



                                                                                                                                 

that the record showed that she scheduled and eventually obtained the evaluation, as  



                                                              -  7 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 8-----------------------

                                                                                                                               

she was required to do.  And the record did not show that she had ever been told that  



                                                                                                                              

delivering collateral information to theagencywas part of her responsibility. Ririe also  



                                                                                                                                

pointed out that her child was in OCS custody at the time and OCS was aware that the  



                                                                                                                     

evaluation  had  been  scheduled  and  therefore  could  have  provided  the  collateral  



                         

information to the agency.  



                                                                                                                              

                    Lastly,  Ririe  argued  that  it  was  error  for  the  court  to  defer  to  the  



                                                                                                        

caseworker'spersonalview of whether Ririe had complied with theOCS requirements  



                                                                                                                              

and  recommendations.                    Ririe argued  that this  was  a question  that the court was  



                                                                                                                                 

required to decide independently based on the evidence presented at the hearing.  



                                                                                                            

                    The district court summarily denied Ririe's motion for reconsideration  



                                                                        

without responding to any of her arguments.  



                                                     

           Why we vacate the district court's order  



                                                                                                                               

                    On appeal, Ririe argues that the district court erred when it found that she  



                                                                                                                               

had violated the terms of the deferred sentencing agreement.   She asserts that she  



                                                                                                                      

substantially complied with the terms of the agreement, as evidenced by the dismissal  



                                                                                                                         

of her  OCS  case and her own testimony, which was found credible by the district  



                                                                                                                                

court.  The Municipality argues that the district court's findings that Ririe violated the  



                                                                                                        

agreement are supported by the record and not clearly erroneous.  



                                                                                                                        

                    Neither  party addresses  the central issue in  this  case,  which  is  what  



                                                                                                                               

substantial compliance means in the context of this deferred sentencing agreement and  



                                                                                         

what the terms of the agreement were in the first place.  



                                                              -  8 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 9-----------------------

                         A deferred sentencing agreement, like a plea agreement, is essentially a                                                             

                                                                                               2  If a dispute arises concerning the  

contract between a defendant and the government.                                                                                                           



terms of the agreement, the trial court must make findings regarding the existence and  

                                                                                                                                                          

meaning of those terms.3                         When the terms of the agreement are ambiguous, "the court  

                                                                                                                                                       



is required to construe the ambiguity against the State, because the State is the party  

                                                                                                                                                       

with the greater bargaining power."4  

                               



                         If one party alleges that the other party has violated the agreement, the  

                                                                                                                                                           

trial court must make findings regarding the asserted breach.5  If a breach is found, the  

                                                                                                                                                           

court must then decide whether the breach was "material."6                                                               Whether a breach is  

                                                                                                                                                             

material is ultimately a question of law, which is reviewed de novo.7  

                                                                                                                      



                         Here,         the       agreement               required             Ririe        to      "[c]omply              with         OCS  

                                                                                                                                                    



requirements/recommendations, including any case/safety plan in effect."  It is clear  

                                                                                                                                                   



from Ririe's testimony that she believed she  had complied with this condition, as  

                                                                                                                                                            



      2     See D      utton  v.  State,  970  P.2d  925,  928  (Alaska  App.  1999)  (citing  Closson  v.  State,  



812  P.2d  966,  970  (Alaska   1991)).  



      3     Id.  

                   



      4     Anthony v . State, 329 P.3d  1027, 1032 (Alaska App. 2014); see also United States  

                                                                                                                                                      

v. Taylor, 961 F.3d 68, 81 (2nd Cir. 2020) ("We construe plea  agreements strictly against  

                                                                                                                                                    

the government and do not hesitate to scrutinize the government's conduct to ensure that it  

                                                                                                                                                      

comports with the highest standard of fairness.") (quoting United States v.  Wilson, 920 F.3d  

                                                                                                                                                         

155,  162 (2nd  Cir.  2019));  United States  v.  Ligon , 937  F.3d  714,  718  (6th Cir.  2019)  

                                                                                                                                                      

("Ambiguities in a plea  agreement must be  construed  against the government.") (quoting  

                                                                                                                                                  

United States v. Fitch , 282 F.3d 364, 367 (6th Cir. 2002)).  

                                                                                             



      5     Dutton , 970 P.2d at 928.  

                                             



      6     Id.  



      7     Id.  (citing Closson, 812 P.2d at 974).  

                                                                                 



                                                                            - 9 -                                                                       2677
  


----------------------- Page 10-----------------------

                                                                                                               

confirmed  by  the  dismissal  of  her  child-in-need-of-aid  case  (and  OCS's  non- 



                                                                                                                        

opposition  to  that  dismissal).                  Ririe's  interpretation  of  this  condition  is  further  



                                                                                                                               

supported by the municipal  prosecutor's email, the only extrinsic evidence of the  



                                                                                                                        

parties' understanding of the agreement in the record. The prosecutor's email strongly  



                                                                                                                             

suggests that the parties understood that dismissal of the OCS case within the nine  



                                                                                                                      

months contemplated by the deferred sentencing agreement would result in dismissal  



                         

of the criminal case.  



                                                                                                                     

                    This interpretation of the deferred sentencing agreement is also consistent  



                                                                                                                   

with the terms of the agreed-upon conditional sentence. The agreed-upon conditional  



                                                                                                                               

sentence - which would  only be imposed if Ririe was found to have violated the  



                                                                                             

agreement  -  consisted  of  a  probationary  sentence  and  various  requirements  to  



                                                                                                                                  

"comply with OCS requirements/recommendations."  The sentence also included a  



                                                                                                                                 

provision that Ririe have contact with D.R. "only as allowed/approved by OCS."  In  



                                                                                                                           

other words, the deferred sentencing agreement clearly contemplated that Ririe would  



                                                                                                                    

only be sentenced under the agreement if the OCS case was still ongoing.  



                                                                                                                 

                    Given the dismissal of the OCS case, it is not clear why the Municipality  



                                                                                                                                     

believed that Ririe was in violation of the terms of the deferred sentencing agreement.  



                                                                                                              

Although theevidentiary hearing suggested that Ririe's caseworker had quibbles about  



                                                                                                                             

Ririe's  compliance  with  certain  OCS  requirements  and  recommendations,  it  was  



                                                                                                          

undisputed that OCS as an entity had non-opposed the dismissal of Ririe's OCS case  



                                                                                                                             

and had returned full custody of her children to her.  It was also undisputed that OCS  



                                                                                                                

had changed their findings from "substantiated" to "not substantiated."  



                                                                                                                               

                    In  any event,  even  assuming that dismissal of  the OCS  case did  not  



                                                                                                                                

constitute compliance with the deferred sentencing agreement, we find no basis in the  



                                                                                         

record for the trial court's finding of a material breach.  



                                                             -  10 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 11-----------------------

                                                                                                                                

                    In  its  written  order,  the  district  court  found  that  Ririe  had  failed  to  



                                                                                                                   

substantially comply with two OCS requirements - the mental health evaluation  



                                                                                                                         

component of the parenting assessment and the mental health evaluation of the sibling.  



                                                                           

But the record does not support either finding.  



                                                                                                                     

                    First,  there  is  nothing  in  the  record  to  suggest  that  the  parenting  



                                                                                                                               

assessment was even part of the deferred sentencingagreement. It was undisputed that  



                                                                                                                   

Ririehad completed thepsychological evaluation required for theparentingassessment  



                                                                                                                         

prior to the parties entering into the deferred sentencing agreement, and there was no  



                                                                                                                               

indication that Ririe had ever been told that the evaluation was incomplete or that she  



                                                                                                                           

had to redo the evaluation after the deferred sentencing agreement was made.  Given  



                                                                                                               

this undisputed record, it was error for the district court to concludethat Ririe's alleged  



                                                                                                                    

failure to obtain adequate collateral information for the already completed evaluation  



                                                              

constituted a breach of the agreement.  



                                                                                                                               

                    It was also error for the district court to find that Ririe's handling of the  



                                                                                                                       

mental health evaluation for D.R.'s siblingconstituted a material breach of the deferred  



                                                                                                                       

sentencing agreement.  The district court found that Ririe had "not giv[en] OCS the  



                                                                                                                        

chance to provide collateral information" to the mental health professionals charged  



                                                                                                                               

with doing the evaluation.  But this finding is not supported  by the record.  At the  



                                                                                                                               

evidentiary hearing,  the caseworker  testified  that she had  communicated  with  the  



                                                                                                                                 

assessing agency regarding the evaluation and she did, in fact, have an opportunity to  



                                                                                                                    

provide collateral information  to  the agency.                            The caseworker's  actual complaint  



                                                                                                                               

appears to have been that Ririe had not done enough to secure the therapy that she  



                                                                                                                            

(i.e., the caseworker) believed the sibling needed.  But it does not appear that OCS  



                                                             -  11 -                                                         2677
  


----------------------- Page 12-----------------------

                                                                                                     8  

shared the caseworker's view.                                                                            Nor is it clear what else Ririe was supposed to do to                                                                                                                   



fulfill this requirement.                                                      



                                           In sum, the record does not support the district court's finding that Ririe                                                                                                                                                  



violated   the   deferred   sentencing   agreement.     The   Municipality's  allegations   of   a  



material breach also appear to be premised on an unreasonable interpretation of the                                                                                                                                                                                           



deferred sentencing agreement.                                                                              Given this record, we conclude that Ririe did not                                                                                                               



violate the deferred sentencing agreement and that she is therefore entitled to withdraw                                                                                                                                                                 

her plea.                    9  



                      Conclusion  



                                           Ririe's sentence is VACATED and this case is REMANDED to the district  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  



court for withdrawal of Ririe's plea and dismissal of her criminal case.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              



           8          Indeed, there                              is   nothing   in   the   record   to   suggest that the   sibling's   mental health  



evaluation ever became a formal part of the case plan.                                                                                                                       



           9          We  note  that the  deferred  sentencing agreement requires  a  $250  payment to  the  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Municipality.  The parties do not discuss this condition.  To the extent it has not yet been  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

paid, it should be paid before Ririe is allowed to withdraw her plea.  

                                                                                                                                                                                                                       



                                                                                                                                   -  12 -                                                                                                                                2677
  

Case Law
Statutes, Regs & Rules
Constitutions
Miscellaneous


IT Advice, Support, Data Recovery & Computer Forensics.
(907) 338-8188

Please help us support these and other worthy organizations:
Law Project for Psychiatraic Rights
Soteria-alaska
Choices
AWAIC