Opinion ID: 414332
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Stipulation Issue

Text: 54 Defendant argues that the government breached the agreement that induced him to enter into the stipulation and therefore it should be vacated. This raises two questions: one factual--whether the terms of the pretrial stipulation agreement were breached, and one legal--whether the stipulation should be treated as a guilty plea. 55 We turn first to the alleged agreement, which was at most an oral understanding, not a formal written agreement. We accept defendant's statement that the government was looking for people to come in and plead in order to help resolve the problem of conducting several trials back to back. Brief for Defendant at 3. Our acceptance is not based on any record evidence, there was none--only the representations of defense counsel--but on the assumption that this is normal and perfectly proper governmental procedure in any multidefendant case. In any event, Martin appears to have been the first to come forward and suggest that a trial might be avoided. 56 It is not disputed that the government consistently took the position that its recommendation would include some jail time. Defendant's breach of agreement argument hinges on the claim that the word some meant considerably less than the maximum penalty of two years. This understanding was derived from statements by the prosecutor to the effect that: You broke the roadblock, we appreciate that. We think that Mr. Martin should get some benefit from that. Brief for Defendant at 3. The government does not deny that statements of this tenor were made, but says it lived up to any agreement or understanding that they might have implied by recommending eighteen months imprisonment instead of the maximum term of two years. 57 We have searched the record in vain for any evidence pointing to a definite agreement by the government to make a specific recommendation of the term of imprisonment. Defendant knew from the start of negotiations that the government would recommend jail time. We do not think that the statements made by the government could be reasonably understood to mean that it would recommend a sentence of a year or less, as defendant implies. We note that nowhere in his brief does defendant state specifically how much jail time he expected. Moreover, the prosecutor's statement, which is taken verbatim from defendant's brief, when read literally strongly suggests that it was made after the stipulation was signed, not before. The words, you broke the roadblock, speak of an accomplished fact, i.e., the signing of the stipulation. The further sentence, [w]e think that Mr. Martin should get some benefit from that, implies a gratuitous benefit to be conferred as a favor, not as an inducement to enter into a stipulation. 58 There is another factor that raises grave doubts as to defendant's claim of a breach of agreement by the government. There were two sentencing hearings: one on December 15, 1981, and the second, more than a month later on January 22, 1982. At the first hearing the prosecutor recommended eighteen months imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. The hearing continued for a considerable time after this recommendation (9 1/2 pages in the record) and at no time did defendant suggest that the government had breached any agreement. Nor was any motion to such effect filed between December 15 and the date of the second hearing on January 22, 1982. 18 It was at the second hearing that the court was first made aware that defendant might have a claim of breach of agreement or misrepresentation by the government. Defense counsel was specifically asked: 59 THE COURT: What are you asking for, Mr. Hundley, you want to go to trial in this case? He has signed a stipulation of fact. Is he now saying that this stipulation of fact was signed under, whether intentionally or otherwise, a misrepresentation and it would not have been signed, would not have been done, had you known the development the case was going to take? 60 Defense counsel's answer was as ambiguous and amorphous as the claim now advanced: I'd like to give some thought to that. The court continued to try to ascertain whether defendant had been misled. It stated to defense counsel: Mr. Gale [prosecutor] states that from Day 1 under no circumstances were you ever led to believe there would be anything but a recommendation for jail, .... Defense counsel was then asked: You deny that? The response was: No. I don't deny that. The prosecutor pointed out that prior to the first sentencing hearing defense counsel had never asked what the government's recommendation would be. 61 Our reading of the record convinces us that there was no breach of any prestipulation agreement by the government. Indeed, there is very little evidence of any plea bargain at all. Because we find that there was no breach of any prestipulation agreement by the government, we need not decide whether the stipulation should be treated as a guilty plea.