Gov't Cannot Unilaterally Conclude Plea Agreement Breached to Justify Arguing for Higher Sentence
United States v. Cudjoe, ___ F.3d ___, 2008 WL 2893130 (10th Cir. 2008)
Government breached “the spirit and the letter” of the plea agreement in which it promised that it would stand mute, though would not support, any request by Defendant for a 30 year sentence.
The agreement was relatively complicated in its dos and don’ts: the government retained the right to argue for a higher Guideline range, for application of specific Guideline enhancers, and retained the right to argue for and present evidence in support of additional Guideline adjustments and sentencing factors. It further reserved the right to change its position if new information came to light. Finally, the deal was off if Defendant said anything or took a position that was not factually accurate. At sentencing, Defendant prevailed on a Guideline challenge which brought his Guideline range down to 30 years to life. The government argued sort of obliquely for the life sentence. Defendant reminded it of its promise to stand mute when he asked for 30 years, the government said something weird indicating that Defendant took a factually inaccurate position, and Defendant got 420 months.
(1) Defendant did not breach the plea by objecting to one of the Guideline enhancers–the plea allowed him to make objections to the Presentence Report. PLUS, the government is not entitled to breach its agreement if it thinks the Defendant has breached his, without bringing it to the attention to the court for its ruling on the matter. THe goernment is bound by its promise until the court rules otherwise.
(2) By advocating a life sentence, the government breached its promise. Defendant’s remedy is re-sentencing, and not “specific performance” of a sentence of 30 years, but specific performance of the government remaining silent.
Government breached “the spirit and the letter” of the plea agreement in which it promised that it would stand mute, though would not support, any request by Defendant for a 30 year sentence.
The agreement was relatively complicated in its dos and don’ts: the government retained the right to argue for a higher Guideline range, for application of specific Guideline enhancers, and retained the right to argue for and present evidence in support of additional Guideline adjustments and sentencing factors. It further reserved the right to change its position if new information came to light. Finally, the deal was off if Defendant said anything or took a position that was not factually accurate. At sentencing, Defendant prevailed on a Guideline challenge which brought his Guideline range down to 30 years to life. The government argued sort of obliquely for the life sentence. Defendant reminded it of its promise to stand mute when he asked for 30 years, the government said something weird indicating that Defendant took a factually inaccurate position, and Defendant got 420 months.
(1) Defendant did not breach the plea by objecting to one of the Guideline enhancers–the plea allowed him to make objections to the Presentence Report. PLUS, the government is not entitled to breach its agreement if it thinks the Defendant has breached his, without bringing it to the attention to the court for its ruling on the matter. THe goernment is bound by its promise until the court rules otherwise.
(2) By advocating a life sentence, the government breached its promise. Defendant’s remedy is re-sentencing, and not “specific performance” of a sentence of 30 years, but specific performance of the government remaining silent.
posted by Anonymous at 9:46 AM
<< Home