Opinion ID: 677728
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Voluntariness of Plea Agreement

Text: 2 Mr. McMahon alleges a violation of Fed.R.Crim.P. 11 in the government's failure to disclose an additional verbal agreement to the sentencing judge before his plea of guilty. He argues that he could not fully be advised of the consequences of his guilty plea, rendering it unintelligent. The government concedes the existence of an undisclosed verbal promise not to object to a motion for bail pending sentence and no such objection was made. Similarly, Mr. McMahon's awareness of the $50 special assessment, but not its payment schedule, does not involve impairment of a substantial right. See United States v. Gomez-Cuevas, 917 F.2d 1521, 1524-25 (10th Cir.1990). Further, where it is part of the plea agreement that the sentence will be in the trial court's discretion, the government does not breach that agreement by making a recommendation to the court. Because we determine below that Mr. McMahon's double jeopardy claim is without merit, we do not address his argument that his counsel's failure to advise him of the possibility of this claim made his guilty plea unknowing. We, therefore, conclude that Mr. McMahon's plea of guilty was voluntarily given.