Third Circuit Court of Appeals: Breach of Plea Bargain by Prosecution Requires New Sentencing and Assignment to New Judge
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has decided the case of United States v. Danny Cruz, holding that the breach of a specific agreement in a plea bargain by the government requires a new sentencing hearing in front of a different judge. In Cruz, the government promised to advocate that Cruz receive a specific offense level at sentencing. It then breached that promise by agreeing with the probation department that a four level enhancement for bribing a public official in a sensitive position should apply as that enhancement raised the total offense level above the agreed upon number. The district court applied the sentencing enhancement, and the defendant appealed.
The Facts of Cruz
In Cruz, the defendant pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to smuggle cell phones into a prison by bribing a guard in violation of the Travel Act. The plea deal entered into by both the defense and the government stipulate that both sides would recommend a total offense level of 14 for sentencing purposes. This offense level was calculated based on the base offense level for the charge and a two-level increase for the fact that Cruz made multiple bribes. The probation officer prepared a pre-sentence report, however, and recommended that the district court also apply a four-level increase for bribing a public official in a sensitive position. That enhancement would increase the total offense level to 18 instead of 14. Cruz objected, arguing that the enhancement violated the plea deal.
Instead of agreeing with Cruz or remaining neutral, the government initially supported the enhancement. Cruz argued that this was a breach of the plea agreement. The prosecution later withdrew its specific endorsement of the enhancement and stated that it took no position on the application of the enhancement. The district court, however, applied it, leading to a total offense level of 15 (after the defendant received three points off for early acceptance of responsibility) and sentenced Cruz to 51 months’ incarceration. Cruz appealed and argued that the government breached the plea agreement by endorsing the enhancement and then taking no position on it instead of advocating for the original agreed upon 14 point offense level.
The Third Circuit’s Ruling
The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit found that the prosecution did in fact breach the plea agreement by supporting the four-level enhancement. The court recognized that plea bargains are contracts like any other that must be strictly adhered to and that the prosecution's actions, even in later attempting to remain neutral, did not cure the breach because the prosecution initially agreed with the proposed application of the enhancement and then did not advocate against it. The appeals court emphasized that prosecutors must keep their promises and make amends if they fail to do so. The court therefore concluded that Cruz did not receive the benefit of the bargain and that the breach was not cured by the prosecution's subsequent neutrality. Had the prosecution tried harder to cure the breach by arguing more forcefully that Cruz should be sentenced with the agreed upon offense level, the appellate court may have found that that the prosecution did not breach the agreement. But simply remaining neutral after initially advocating for the application of the enhancement after specifically agreeing not to do so did not cure the breach.
Accordingly, the Third Circuit vacated Cruz’s sentence and remanded the case to a different judge. On remand, the new judge will have to decide whether to enforce the plea agreement as originally designed or allow Cruz to withdraw the plea should he still wish to do so. Although the judge did not do anything improper, the Third Circuit reasoned that the judge may have a hard time ignoring the government’s initial recommendation that the trial court in fact apply the enhancement. Therefore, Cruz should be sentenced by a different judge.
Facing criminal charges or appealing a criminal case? We can help.
Criminal Defense Lawyer Zak T. Goldstein, Esquire
If you are facing criminal charges or under investigation by the police, we can help. We have successfully defended thousands of clients against criminal charges in courts throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. We have successfully obtained full acquittals and dismissals in cases involving charges such as Conspiracy, Aggravated Assault, Rape, Violations of the Uniform Firearms Act, and First-Degree Murder. We have also won criminal appeals and PCRAs in state and federal court, including the exoneration of a client who spent 33 years in prison for a murder he did not commit. Our award-winning Philadelphia criminal defense lawyers offer a free criminal defense strategy session to any potential client. Call 267-225-2545 to speak with an experienced and understanding defense attorney today.
