Opinion ID: 47920
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Breach of Plea Bargain

Text: 54 Defendant Ford claims that by bringing against him the March 2004 indictment that lead to this trial, the government breached its earlier plea agreement with him stemming from a January 2003 indictment. In the January 2003 indictment, Ford and his wife were charged with one count of distributing methamphetamine on May 13, 2002, one count of possession with intent to distribute methamphetamine on May 16, 2002, multiple gun counts, and one count for having maintained a place for manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine from approximately May 13, 2002, to June 10, 2002. In March 2003, Ford pled guilty to one gun count pursuant to a plea agreement in which the government agreed to dismiss the other counts against him. 55 This court reviews a claim of breach of a plea agreement de novo, accepting the district court's factual findings unless clearly erroneous. United States v. Davis, 393 F.3d 540, 546 (5th Cir.2004) (internal citations omitted). We apply general principles of contract law in order to interpret the terms of the plea agreement. United States v. Cantu, 185 F.3d 298, 304 (5th Cir.1999). The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating the underlying facts that establish the breach by a preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Wittie, 25 F.3d 250, 262 (5th Cir.1994). To assess whether a plea agreement has been violated, this court considers whether the government's conduct is consistent with the defendant's reasonable understanding of the agreement. United States v. Valencia, 985 F.2d 758, 761 (5th Cir.1993). 56 The issue raised here by Ford is similar to that presented in Cantu. There, the appellant argued that the government alleged the same conduct in the possession count dismissed pursuant to his plea agreement and in the subsequent RICO count filed against him. 185 F.3d at 305. This court concluded that it was not reasonable for Cantu to believe that his plea agreement barred the government from bringing a different charge in a future prosecution. Id. We explained that [t]he language of the plea agreement is narrowly worded, speaking only to the government's obligation to dismiss `Count II of the First Superseding Indictment.' Id. We further found that Cantu was not prejudiced, because although conduct that was the basis of the dismissed charge was incorporated into the later charge as an overt act, it was only one of nine overt acts presented by the government. Id. At trial, the government adduced sufficient evidence bearing upon the other eight overt acts to justify Cantu's conviction. Id. 57 Here Ford argues that his dismissed aiding and abetting charge was so similar to the conspiracy charge made in the March 2004 indictment as to preclude prosecution for that later charge. Ford also notes that count two of the March 2004 indictment includes as an overt act Ford's manufacture of methamphetamine on May 13, 2002, the same act that was a basis for his dismissed aiding and abetting charge. As in Cantu, however, Ford's plea agreement does not contain any promise by the government not to prosecute Ford for a different crime arising out of facts from the first indictment. There is a substantial difference between Ford's aiding and abetting charge, which included only Ford's cooperation with his wife, and the March 2004 indictment, which alleged Ford's manufacture of methamphetamine for the Aryan Circle group over a much broader time span. Moreover, the testimony at trial focused not on Ford's manufacturing activities on or around May 13, 2002, but on his manufacture for Hines, Jr., and Charles Samson in January 2002 and with Wilkins in late November 2002 through mid January 2003. Consequently, there was no prejudice to Ford, and his conviction must stand.