## Facts

- Jeffrey Rios was charged in the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County with multiple assault and handgun-related offenses, reckless endangerment, and unlawfully carrying a handgun.
- During plea negotiations, the prosecutor initially offered a plea to handgun possession and reckless endangerment with time served.
- Defense counsel rejected that offer and proposed that Rios would enter an Alford plea to reckless endangerment with time served, with remaining charges dismissed.
- The prosecutor agreed, and defense counsel stated he would discuss the offer with Rios.
- After consulting with Rios, defense counsel attempted to accept the agreed terms by leaving multiple voicemail messages for the prosecutor.
- When the prosecutor later spoke with defense counsel, counsel asked whether the State would allow a nolo contendere plea instead of an Alford plea; the prosecutor declined and then stated no plea offer would be made.
- Rios moved to specifically enforce the alleged plea agreement; the parties stipulated to the negotiation history.
- The circuit court denied the motion, ruling no agreement existed because counsel’s nolo contendere inquiry was a counteroffer that rejected and terminated the State’s offer.
- Rios filed an interlocutory appeal; the State moved to dismiss under the final judgment rule.

## Issues

1. Whether an order denying a defendant’s motion to specifically enforce a plea agreement is immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.
2. Whether the stipulated negotiation history established that the parties formed an enforceable plea agreement.
3. Whether defense counsel’s inquiry about substituting a nolo contendere plea constituted a counteroffer that terminated the State’s Alford-plea offer.
4. If a plea agreement existed, whether it was subject to specific enforcement against the State.

## Decision

- The appellate court denied the State’s motion to dismiss, holding the interlocutory appeal was permitted under the collateral order doctrine.
- The court reversed the circuit court, holding that Rios and the State had entered into an enforceable plea agreement for an Alford plea to reckless endangerment with time served and dismissal of the remaining charges.
- The court held the nolo contendere inquiry was not a rejecting counteroffer and did not terminate the existing agreement.
- The court held the plea agreement was subject to specific enforcement and remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.

## Legal Principles

- A denial of a motion to enforce a plea agreement may be immediately appealable as a collateral order when it conclusively resolves an important issue separate from the merits that would be effectively unreviewable after final judgment.
- Plea agreements are evaluated using contract-formation principles; a definite offer accepted within a reasonable time forms an enforceable agreement, subject to constitutional considerations governing plea bargaining.
- An exploratory request to modify plea form (e.g., asking about a nolo contendere plea) does not, without more, amount to a counteroffer that rejects and terminates an existing offer or agreement.
- When an enforceable plea agreement exists, specific performance may be an available remedy requiring the prosecution to honor the agreed disposition.

## Conclusion

The court held that the denial of enforcement of a plea agreement was immediately appealable, that the stipulated negotiations established an enforceable agreement for an Alford plea to reckless endangerment with time served, and that the State was required to specifically perform the agreement on remand.


Rios v. State, 186 Md. App. 354 (Ct. Spec. App. 2009)