Opinion ID: 747239
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Breach of Agreement Irrelevant

Text: 33 Relying on United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629 (9th Cir.1988), Barron argues that the government may not be relieved of its obligations under the plea agreement absent a breach by the defendant. Barron contends he did not breach his plea agreement by collaterally attacking his section 924(c)(1) conviction because his plea agreement did not expressly preclude such a challenge. Because he fulfilled his end of the bargain, he argues, the government must fulfill its obligations under the agreement. 34 Contrary to Barron's assertion, nothing in Partida-Parra suggests a district court may not rescind a plea agreement upon a petitioner's successful section 2255 motion to vacate a conviction and sentence entered under that agreement. In Partida-Parra we did not address the power of the district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. We held, rather, that a district court may not, at the government's request, vacate a voluntary guilty plea and rescind a plea agreement that has been accepted by the court, unless the defendant breached the agreement. Id. at 633-34. The defendant in Partida-Parra was perfectly content with his conviction and plea bargain. It was the government who sought to rescind the plea agreement because it had mistakenly charged a misdemeanor rather than a felony. Id. Here, on the other hand, it is the defendant who seeks to vacate his conviction. Section 2255 specifically authorizes the district court to fashion an appropriate remedy for this kind of successful collateral challenge. The district court's authority to vacate the plea agreement was not contingent on whether or not Barron breached it. 35 In this regard, this case is distinguishable from United States v. Sandoval-Lopez, 122 F.3d 797 (9th Cir.1997). In Sandoval-Lopez, we held that the district court could not rescind the petitioners' plea agreements on the ground that the petitioners allegedly breached those agreements by bringing a successful, collateral Bailey challenge. There, [t]he only basis on which the government contest[ed] the defendants' claim that the charges may not be reinstated [was] the alleged breach or repudiation of the plea agreement. Id., 122 F.3d at 800. As we said, Sandoval-Lopez was a simple contract case. Id. 122 F.3d at 802. The only issue on appeal in that case was whether the defendants breached their plea agreements by collaterally attacking their section 924(c) convictions. Id. at 800. Here, on the other hand, the government correctly argues that the district court had authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to fashion an appropriate remedy after Barron's successful Bailey challenge. We need not decide in this case whether or not Barron breached the agreement, and, we express no opinion on the district court's conclusion that he did. See Barron, 940 F.Supp. at 1493.