Opinion ID: 552412
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Contract Law Analogy

Text: 16 To support the court's reformation of the plea agreement, the government relies on contract law doctrines. This comparison is not novel. Other courts have compared accepted plea agreements to contracts. 1 In United States v. Weaver, 905 F.2d 1466 (11th Cir.1990), the court applied contract principles to a government letter granting immunity to a criminal defendant. In responding to the defendant's claim that there was a mutual mistake in the contract, the court said: 17 [R]eformation of a written agreement is warranted only when the evidence demonstrates that the parties' mutual mistake resulted in a written document which does not accurately reflect the terms of their agreement. Consequently, reformation is generally, without more, not an available remedy where the evidence demonstrates mistake or change of mind of only one of the contracting parties. 18 Id. at 1472 (citations omitted). Applying this principle to Landon's plea agreement, there was no mistake in Landon's mind about the term of imprisonment. Landon is further justified in relying upon the specific time period in the plea agreement because the government had the Rule 11(e)(1)(B) option of agreeing to recommend a specific sentence; instead, the government chose to promise a specific term of imprisonment pursuant to Rule 11(e)(1)(C). 19 Plea agreements are like contracts; however, they are not contracts, and therefore contract doctrines do not always apply to them. United States v. Zweber, 913 F.2d 705, 711 (9th Cir.1990). In Zweber, the defendants pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend certain reductions to decrease their sentences. Id. at 707. At sentencing, the court granted no reductions or downward departures and denied the defendants' subsequent motion to withdraw their guilty pleas. Id. On appeal, the defendants argued that the plea agreement was void because both parties to the agreement were mutually mistaken about the law governing the Guidelines. Id. at 711. In rejecting this argument, the Ninth Circuit said that [t]he fact that the mistake in this case was mutual does not support the defendant's claim.... Analogies to contract law in this setting are not perfect. Id. 20 This court has also acknowledged the inherent limits of the contract analogy. In United States v. Vogt, 901 F.2d 100 (8th Cir.1990), we applied contract principles to decide that the government waived its right to complain of the defendant's breach by waiting ten weeks before seeking to vacate the plea agreement. Vogt, 901 F.2d at 102. After applying the Restatement (Second) of Contracts, we noted that  'contract principles provide a useful means by which to analyze the enforceability of plea agreements.'  Id. (emphasis added) (quoting United States v. Vogt, No. Cr. 88-39, Order at 2 (N.D.Iowa July 12, 1989)). 21 In United States v. Pelletier, 898 F.2d 297 (2d Cir.1990), the government used immunized testimony in arguing that the defendants' false testimony resulted in a breach of the agreement that granted their immunity. Id. at 301. Although the court recognized the strong influence of contract law principles on such agreements, it held that due process requires that [the] government adhere to the terms of any plea bargain or immunity agreement it makes. Id. The court rejected the government's breach of contract argument stating that due process required a deviation from normal commercial contract law. Id. at 302. 22 In Partida-Parra, the Ninth Circuit specifically refused to apply the contract doctrine of mutual mistake to plea agreements. 859 F.2d at 634. Recognizing the limitation of the plea agreement/contract analogy, the court held that district courts could not revisit an accepted plea to consider whether [a] 'contract' was formed (as distinct from considering whether it was breached). Id. 23 When the district court told Landon that it would not have accepted the guilty plea had it known of the mistaken criminal history classification, it was attempting to revisit the original plea agreement because of a mutual mistake. Even though the contract law analogy may seem to invite such revisitations, they are simply not allowed.