## Facts

- Police executed a search warrant at a Scottsdale residence and seized approximately 1,382 grams of 80–95% pure cocaine and two small bags of marijuana.
- Three people present were arrested: Richard Solano, Vickie Hurst, and Guy Lindstrom. After the arrests, Richard Solano and Vickie Hurst married.
- A grand jury indicted all three for (1) possession of a narcotic drug (cocaine) for sale with a value over $250 (class 2 felony) and (2) possession of marijuana (class 6 felony).
- The State negotiated a “package-deal” set of plea agreements: each defendant’s plea was expressly conditioned on the court’s acceptance of the pleas of the other two co-defendants.
- Under the package:
  - Richard Solano agreed to plead guilty to possession of cocaine for sale (class 2 felony) in exchange for dismissal of the marijuana count and a sentence of 63 months (five and one-quarter years), with ineligibility for parole for five years.
  - Vickie Hurst-Solano and Guy Lindstrom each agreed to enter an Alford plea to the lesser offense of possession of cocaine (class 4 felony) and each would receive five years (the maximum for that offense).
- At sentencing, the judge noted the presentence report suggested less severe punishment for Hurst-Solano and Lindstrom and expressed concern that five years was not justified for them, but accepted the package and imposed the agreed sentences.
- Richard Solano and Hurst-Solano appealed. The court of appeals consolidated the appeals, held that package-deal pleas violate Rule 17.4 and public policy, and vacated the pleas and sentences.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted the State’s petition for review.

## Issues

1. Whether “package-deal” plea agreements—where each defendant’s plea is contingent on acceptance of the co-defendants’ pleas—violate Rule 17.4 of the Arizona Rules of Criminal Procedure or public policy.
2. If package-deal pleas are not categorically invalid, what level of inquiry must the trial court conduct to ensure the pleas are voluntary.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that package-deal plea agreements are not invalid as a categorical matter under Rule 17.4 or public policy.
- The court recognized that contingent pleas create added risk of coercion (especially where leniency for a third party is part of the inducement), so trial courts must conduct a careful, on-the-record inquiry into the totality of the circumstances to confirm voluntariness.
- Applying that approach, the court concluded the Solanos’ pleas were voluntary and valid.
- Disposition: the court vacated the court of appeals’ decision and reinstated (left in place) the guilty pleas and sentences imposed under the plea agreements.

## Legal Principles

- Package-deal plea bargaining is permissible in Arizona; it is not barred simply because multiple defendants’ pleas are linked by a contingency clause.
- Because contingent pleas can pressure a defendant to plead to benefit a spouse, relative, or co-defendant, trial courts must use special care in the plea colloquy.
- The trial court must evaluate voluntariness based on the totality of the circumstances, including whether the defendant’s will was overborne by threats, improper promises, family pressure, or disproportionate treatment among co-defendants.
- Rule 17.4 does not forbid negotiated pleas conditioned on acceptance of related pleas, but it requires the court to independently decide whether to accept the agreement and to ensure the plea is knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.
- A presentence recommendation differing from the negotiated terms does not, by itself, invalidate an accepted plea agreement; the controlling question remains whether the plea was voluntary and properly accepted under the rules.

## Conclusion

State v. Solano holds that package-deal plea agreements do not automatically violate Rule 17.4 or public policy, but they demand a careful, on-the-record voluntariness inquiry because the linkage among co-defendants’ pleas increases the risk of coercion; applying that standard, the Arizona Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ categorical invalidation and reinstated the Solanos’ pleas and sentences.


State v. Solano, 724 P.2d 17 (1986)