Opinion ID: 869748
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Application of Statute of

Text: Limitations Ciavarella adequately preserved his objection to Count 7‟s statute of limitations by raising it in his pre-trial motion to dismiss. Count 7 alleges a violation of honest services mail fraud based on the mailing of a Statement of Financial Interests in April 2004. The original Indictment was filed on September 9, 2009, over five years after the conduct alleged in Count 7. This count is clearly time-barred absent any waiver by Ciavarella. The Government argues that Ciavarella expressly waived the statute-of-limitations defense through his January 2009 plea agreement. The plea agreement states: The defendant further agrees to waive any defenses to the prosecution of [any] charges [currently under investigation related to this matter] based upon laches, the assertion of speedy trial rights, any applicable statute of 49 limitations or any other grounds in the event that the defendant successfully vacates or sets aside any conviction or sentence of incarceration imposed pursuant to this plea agreement. Supp. App. 41. As previously stated, Ciavarella signed the plea agreement, later withdrew his guilty plea, and proceeded to trial where he was found guilty of Count 7 on February 18, 2011. The Government contends, though, that Ciavarella‟s “conviction” was established by his guilty plea, and that “[b]y withdrawing his plea, Ciavarella „vacated and set aside‟ his conviction.” Gov‟t Br. at 60-61. We see no basis for the Government‟s interpretation of the waiver provision in the plea agreement. The language— “vacates or sets any conviction . . . imposed pursuant to this plea agreement”—clearly contemplates a conviction that was achieved due to that plea agreement. Here, Ciavarella‟s conviction on Count 7 was achieved not as a result of the plea agreement, as Ciavarella withdrew his plea and proceeded to trial, but as a result of the jury‟s verdict. Moreover, the plea agreement also states that “either party has the right to withdraw from this agreement and withdraw any guilty plea entered” if the District Court fails to accept the stipulated sentence. Supp. App. 48. This is precisely what occurred here. Accordingly, even if we found the agreement regarding the statute-of-limitations waiver to include this type of situation, the waiver was nullified by the Court‟s rejection of, and the parties‟ withdrawal from, the agreement. For these reasons, we hold that Ciavarella did not waive his statute-oflimitations defense to the honest services mail fraud count 50 based on a mailing in April 2004, and we will vacate the conviction for Count 7.