A Deal Is a Deal? Tell It to the D.A.

Charles Peterson helped kill a man in 1984. He confessed and then helped convict two accomplices in return for a pledge from Los Angeles County prosecutors to help him win parole from prison when he became eligible.

Peterson, who drove the getaway car and provided the shotgun used in the crime, said he knew what he was doing when he made the deal and turned state’s witness. “That’s an instant death sentence when you go to prison if you testify against someone,” he said.

So Peterson was not pleased when prosecutors didn’t keep their promise. They showed up at his first parole hearing in 2000 and strongly opposed his release. The same thing happened two years later. The third time, they took no position on Peterson’s release, but parole was again denied.

Finally, Peterson’s lawyers asked a judge for his release, arguing that the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office did not uphold its end of the plea agreement.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Thomas C. Falls ruled that the prosecutors made “willful, deliberate and egregious” breaches of their plea deal. Peterson, who was serving a sentence of 25 years to life, walked free in September.

Higher courts have recognized that plea bargains essentially are contracts and occasionally have thrown out convictions and sentences when prosecutors break them.

“Plea bargaining cannot work as a system ... unless prosecutors are forced by courts to keep their promises,” said UCLA professor Peter Arenella. “Prosecutors would simply lose their credibility with other defense lawyers if they knew they could make a promise to induce a plea and then break it with impunity a few years later.”

In August 1984, Donald Hoyt showed up at the West Covina home of his stepfather, Celso Alvarez, wearing a ski mask and armed with a shotgun. He lured Alvarez outside and then shot him four times at close range.

Prosecutors filed murder charges against Hoyt and his mother, Sharon Alvarez, who had orchestrated the killing of her ex-husband to gain control of his estate. They also charged Peterson, who drove the getaway car and provided the shotgun.

Peterson pleaded guilty to murder. His plea agreement, dated July 1, 1985, stated that he would testify “fully and truthfully” against Hoyt and Alvarez.

In return, prosecutors promised to write to the Board of Prison Terms explaining Peterson’s “cooperation in the murder prosecution, recommending favorable consideration at his parole hearing.”

The agreement also stated that the district attorney’s office would recommend to the Department of Corrections that Peterson serve his time in protective custody.

Peterson did what he had promised to do. He testified against his co-defendants, and jurors convicted both the mother and son of first-degree murder.

The district attorney’s office, meanwhile, sent a letter in September 1985 to the Corrections Department saying that Peterson was “a very important witness” in two murder cases. Attempts had been made on his life in county jail, the letter stated.

But when he went to prison, according to court papers, the attempts on his life continued. He was not consistently kept in protective custody, his attorneys said. At one point, Peterson said, he and Hoyt were placed in the same prison, and his co-defendant tried to attack him in the dining hall.

Peterson appeared before the parole board for the first time in February 2000. Deputy Dist. Atty. Diane Vizanni opposed parole, saying that Peterson posed a risk to public safety. When his attorney mentioned the original plea agreement, Vizanni said she was not aware of it. The board denied parole.

Peterson’s second hearing came two years later. At that time, Deputy Dist. Atty. Al Botelo acknowledged the plea deal but still opposed parole based on Peterson’s performance in prison. Again, the board denied parole.

At the last hearing in June 2003, Deputy Dist. Atty. Dave Dahle said the office was “regrettably” bound by the plea agreement. Dahle did not take a position on whether Peterson should be released, other than what was in the agreement. The board denied parole a third time, concluding that Peterson would “pose an unreasonable risk of danger to society or a threat to public safety if released from prison.”

Peterson, 40, said in a recent interview that he felt betrayed by the district attorney’s office after he played such a critical role in putting two murderers behind bars.

“It was a joke what they were doing to me,” he said. “They refused to acknowledge the plea agreement. They refused to assist me in getting out.”

Peterson’s attorney, Amy Morton, says defense lawyers need to be able to rely on the integrity of the district attorney’s office to follow through on plea deals.

“The prosecutors are supposed to uphold the law and do justice,” Morton said. “They are not supposed to be vindictive. If the D.A.’s were to continue to act this way, the days of relying on informant or co-defendant testimony would certainly dry up.”

Deputy Dist. Atty. Hyman Sisman argued in court that prosecutors wrote the letter they had agreed to write but that they never promised to “go up to the parole board with pompoms and a cheerleader’s outfit” to champion Peterson’s release.

“We did what we were supposed to do under the agreement,” Sisman said in an interview. “There was no breach and, if there was one, it didn’t seem to affect the ruling by the parole board.”

Sisman also wrote in court papers that the failure to keep Peterson in protective custody was the fault of the Corrections Department, not the district attorney’s office.

For most of his time in state prison, Peterson was kept at the California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo, designed for inmates who cannot be housed safely elsewhere, said Margot Bach, department spokeswoman.

“Absolutely, we want to keep people from harm,” she said. “But for someone to be promised something at sentencing, that puts us in a real situation. We have to make the final decision.”

Falls issued a harsh written ruling in August, concluding that prosecutors violated the plea deal by opposing Peterson’s parole. Falls wrote that there was no “magic wand” to correct the wrong done to Peterson.

He did not rule on whether prosecutors should have worked harder to ensure Peterson’s protection, but wrote that Peterson had put himself at risk for the district attorney’s office. At a court hearing, he said he was appalled by how the Corrections Department had handled the situation.

“There is no possible way to return [Peterson’s] ... peace of mind, sense of safety or testimony,” Falls wrote.

At a hearing, the judge also reprimanded prosecutors. “I don’t understand why the district attorney’s office doesn’t simply admit it’s a mistake,” Falls said.

The judge allowed Peterson to withdraw his original guilty plea to murder. He pleaded instead to manslaughter and was released on time served.

Peterson said he now thinks all defendants should take their cases to trial so they don’t have to depend on the word of prosecutors. “In the long run,” said Peterson, who plans to seek work as a welder in Colorado, “you always have to fight for your freedom.”