United States v. Heredia

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007 · Criminal Law

Criminal LawPlea AgreementsRule 11(c)(1)(C)Illegal ReentryFast-Track Sentencingplea agreementRule 11(c)(1)(C)fast-track

Facts

Morales was charged with illegal reentry after prior removals, and he entered a written fast-track plea agreement under Rule 11(c)(1)(C). In exchange for extensive waivers, the government agreed to recommend a sentence at the low end of the applicable Guidelines range plus three years of supervised release, and both parties agreed not to seek, argue, or suggest any other sentence. The presentence report described Morales's criminal history and recommended the stipulated six-month sentence. In its sentencing memorandum, however, the government, while formally recommending six months, repeatedly highlighted prejudicial details of Morales's prior offenses and characterized him as showing a consistent disregard for criminal and immigration law and as posing a danger to the community.

Issue

Did the government breach a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) fast-track plea agreement by formally recommending the stipulated sentence while also making inflammatory comments and detailed references to the defendant's criminal history that implicitly advocated for a harsher sentence? If so, what remedy follows when the defendant timely objected and sought specific performance?

Rule

The government must strictly comply with the literal terms of a plea agreement, including a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement. It breaches the agreement not only by expressly recommending a different sentence, but also by implicitly undermining its promised recommendation through statements that serve no practical purpose but to advocate a harsher sentence, or by violating an express promise not to seek, argue, or suggest any sentence other than the stipulated one. When a preserved breach occurs, harmless-error review does not apply; the proper remedy is specific performance before a different judge, and if the district court erroneously rejects the agreement after overruling the breach objection, the defendant is entitled to relief on appeal.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, Diego Ramos entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea with the United States through the fictional Sonoran District Office. The government agreed to recommend 10 months in prison and promised not to seek, argue, or suggest any other sentence, but its sentencing memo formally recommended 10 months while also describing in vivid detail Diego's prior assaults already set out in the PSR and calling him "a menace who has learned nothing from prior leniency."

Did the government breach the plea agreement?

Explanation. Yes. The governing rule requires strict compliance with plea agreements. The government breaches not only by expressly recommending a different sentence, but also by implicitly undermining its promised recommendation through prejudicial comments that provide no new information, do not correct inaccuracies, and serve no practical purpose except to push for a harsher sentence. Here the vivid repetition of PSR facts plus editorializing denied the defendant the promised united front.