Opinion ID: 152332
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Devin’s Appeal

Text: Devin timely appealed from the judgment of sentence, arguing that the government breached its plea agreement by implicitly recommending a life sentence, despite having agreed not to recommend a specific sentence.4 Devin Hodge, 412 F.3d at 484. We agreed. First we concluded “that a reasonable person would have understood the plain language of Devin’s plea agreement to mean that the government would not make any specific sentencing recommendation.” Id. at 486-87. Next, we held that, based on the prosecutor’s comments at the sentencing hearing: The government broke its promise. The prosecutor asked “whether the community at large [had] to wonder, once [Devin’s] sentence is completed and he’s released back into the community, whether [he made] a genuine change or not.” The plain implication of that statement was that Devin should not be released back into the community. The prosecutor added that Devin “had his chance to be a positive influence in the community.” The plain implication of that statement was that Devin should not be given another chance to be a positive influence in the community. The prosecutor 4 Devin also argued that his plea colloquy was deficient because the Court was unaware that his plea was linked to Irvine’s plea, however, we rejected that argument. Devin Hodge, 412 F.3d at 480. 7 stated that the murder victim did not get a second chance to be a positive influence in the community and urged the Court to “fashion a sentence that is fair and just to the victims in this case.” The plain implication of that statement was that a fair and just sentence for Devin would deny him a second chance. In short, “[o]nly a stubbornly literal mind would refuse to regard the Government’s commentary as communicating a [specific recommendation] on sentencing.” By recommending a “life sentence in all but name,” the government breached its agreement with Devin. Id. at 487 (alterations in original) (footnote and citations omitted). In so reasoning, we pointed out that Ms. Rawlins’s request that Devin “bear the full penalty of the law” only emphasized the prosecutor’s effort to equate a sentence that is fair to the victims with a life sentence. Id. at 487 n.9. Accordingly, we vacated Devin’s sentence and remanded “for the District Court to determine whether to grant specific performance or allow withdrawal of the guilty plea.” 5 Id. at 487.