State v. Quiroz

David Quiroz and Clark Haas (defendants) were juvenile offenders who signed diversion agreements and later claimed the agreements violated their constitutional rights. A diversion agreement was a contract between a diversionary unit and a juvenile who was accused of a crime; the agreement allowed the juvenile to fulfill certain requirements instead of being prosecuted. The diversion agreement benefited the juvenile and the state (plaintiff). It was possible that a diversion agreement on a juvenile’s criminal history could affect a sentence of detention in the future. Yet diversion agreements were not equivalent to convictions. Quiroz and Haas committed crimes for which they pleaded guilty. However, Quiroz and Haas both had multiple diverted misdemeanors on their criminal histories, some of which were used to enhance their sentences. Therefore, Quiroz and Haas each filed motions to void their prior diversion agreements, alleging that the agreements violated their constitutional rights. Regarding the prior diversion agreements, Quiroz and Haas both had received forms from their probation officers, who reviewed the forms with them. The diversion forms advised Quiroz and Haas of their right to speak to an attorney free of charge before deciding whether to pursue a diversion agreement or to go to court. The forms also advised that if Quiroz and Haas believed they were innocent, they should speak to an attorney. The charges against Quiroz and Haas were written at the top of the forms. Finally, the forms warned that a diversion agreement on a criminal history could increase a future detention sentence. Quiroz and Haas were also given waiver forms, which stated that the juveniles understood how a lawyer could assist them but that they had chosen not to consult an attorney. Quiroz and Haas signed the diversion agreements and attorney waivers. Trial judges denied the motions to void the diversion agreements, finding that Quiroz’s and Haas’s waivers of counsel were knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Quiroz and Haas appealed, and their cases were consolidated. On appeal, Quiroz and Haas claimed that: (1) they did not have sufficient opportunity to talk to a lawyer; (2) they were not given sufficient notice of their charges; (3) the diversion process was basically a conviction, and fundamental constitutional rights were not protected; and (4) the added rights related to criminal prosecutions should be applicable because a diversion agreement could lengthen future detentions.