Some states use a sentencing alternative known as deferred prosecution. Authorized by state statute, this option allows an individual to admit or stipulate to the facts of the criminal conduct while prosecution is deferred pending completion of a treatment program or other court-ordered conditions. If the individual successfully fulfills these conditions, the case is typically dismissed and no judgment of conviction is entered. If the individual fails to comply, the court may enter a conviction and proceed with sentencing.
The question in such cases is whether the individual is a “supervised individual” covered by the ICAOS, given that no formal conviction exists and the individual appears to remain in a “pretrial” status. However, the Commission has interpreted the Compact’s rules to include certain deferred prosecutions.
As stated in Advisory Opinion 6-2005, the Commission found little practical difference between deferred prosecution and deferred sentencing. In both circumstances, the individual has admitted to the essential facts of the criminal conduct and is placed under court-ordered supervision. While a deferred prosecution may not involve a formal judgment or suspended sentence, the individual is no longer presumed innocent, having made a binding admission and accepted supervisory conditions. The Commission clarified that, in determining whether the Compact applies, states must focus on the court’s actions and the legal effect of the proceeding rather than the label assigned under state law:
“In determining that Rule 2.106 applies to deferred prosecutions, we focus on the actual actions taken rather than the label used by the legislature.”