Case o' The Week: Stip, Agree, But Not Recommend - Breach and Plea Agreement Appellate Waivers
Does a promise to “stipulate and agree” to a sentence include a
promise to recommend that sentence?
Not in the Ninth.
United States v. Hernandez-Castro, 2016 WL
736530 (9th Cir. Feb. 25, 2015), decision available here.
Players:
Decision by visiting Sr. Eighth Circuit Judge Melloy, joined by Judges Ikuta
and Hurwitz.
Facts: Hernandez-Castro pleaded guilty to conspiracy with
intent to distribute heroin. Id. at
*1. In the plea agreement, the government “stipulate[d] and agree[d]” to a four
level fast track departure. Id. at
*1.
At sentencing, the district court only departed down two levels for fast
track.
Neither party objected. Id.
Despite a plea agreement with an appellate waiver, Ms. Hernandez-Castro appealed.
Issue(s): “Hernandez-Castro . . . argues the government breached her plea
agreement, thereby invalidating her appeal waiver.” Id. at *1. “Hernandez-Castro argues that the government breached
her plea agreement by not objecting when the district court granted only a
two-level departure for fast track (rather than the four-level departure in the
agreement.” Id. at *2.
Held: “Camarillo-Tello is distinguishable
because today we review for plain error. Unlike the plea agreement in Camarillo-Tello, Hernandez-Castro’s plea
agreement does not indicate the government ‘will recommend’ the four-level
departure for fast track. Rather, paragraph eight of her plea agreement
provides ‘the parties stipulate and agree that the following guideline
calculations are appropriate for the charge for which the defendant is pleading
guilty.’ That language is sufficiently distinct from the language obligating
government action in Camarillo-Tello
for us to conclude no plain error occurred here.” Id. at *2.
Of Note: The holding of Hernandez-Castro
is that a deal that requires the government to “stipulate and agree” to a
sentence does not, by necessity, also require the government to “recommend” the sentence.
When distinguishing this disappointing opinion, emphasize that this is a
plain error case, and that the AUSA did ultimately support other reductions
that resulted in a more-lenient sentence. Id.
at *2. This very fact-bound sentencing entered into the Court’s plain error
analysis, and limits the holding that there was no breach.
How to Use:
In United States v. Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001), the Ninth
reversed an illegal reentry sentence when the agreement required the government
to recommend a four-level downward
departure -- the government breached by failing to argue for the departure in
its sentencing memo and argue it at sentencing. Id. at *2.
Judge Melloy distinguishes Camarillo-Tello by observing that in
Hernandez-Castro’s agreement the government didn’t expressly promise to recommend the departure, but instead
promised to “stipulate and agree” to
it. Not a whole lot of contra proferntem
going on against the government-drafter of this contract.
Remember and cite this very narrow
contract interpretation in Hernandez-Castro
in four months, when we’re gunning for the plea agreement collateral attack waivers
during our Johnson § 2255 tsunami.
For Further
Reading: When district judges know their
sentencing decisions are unreviewable because of appellate waivers, it affects sentencing
procedures and outcomes. So argues Clinical Professor Kevin Bennardo in a very interesting
article. See Kevin Bennardo, Post-Sentencing Appellate Waivers, 48 U. Mich. J. L. Reform 347 (2015), available
here.
The proposed solution? Create post-sentencing appellate waivers,
negotiated and memorialized in post-sentencing agreements. Id.
In addition to some thought-provoking
proposals, this article has a useful discussion of the history of sentencing appellate
waivers – a handy review as we gear up for the aforementioned Johnson brouhaha ahead.
Image of
contract from http://static1.squarespace.com/static/54b5b627e4b0ad6fb5d09409/t/552065b3e4b019d7121fd8b5/1428186547561/breach.jpg?format=1500w
Steven Kalar, Federal Public Defender
ND Cal. Website at www.ndcalfpd.org
.
Labels: Appellate Waiver, Breach, Johnson
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home