Legal Document

471 U.S. 453 105 S.Ct. 2103 85 L.Ed.2d 462 UNITED STATESv.Joseph BENCHIMOL. No. 84-1165. May 13, 1985. PER CURIAM. 1 In April 1976, respondent pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for Northern of California to an information charging him with one count mail fraud violation 18 U.S.C. § 1341. Respondent pursuant a plea bargain whereby Government agreed recommend probation on condition that restitution be made. The disregarded recommendation and sentenced six years treatment supervision under Youth Corrections Act, 5010(b). He was released parole after serving months his sentence, but warrant arrest because issued 1978, he eventually taken into custody October 1981. A few days before this warrant, filed motion Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 32(d) 28 2255 withdraw or, alternative, have sentence vacated resentenced time already served. claimed had failed comply its part upon which based. 2 received also heard respondent's application collateral relief, denied it. Appeals by divided vote reversed judgment, holding "when government undertakes bargain, it has duty state clearly sentencing judge express justification it." 738 F.2d 1001, 1002 (CA9 1984). There is some slight disagreement about facts surrounding terms presentation Court, situation entirely understandable reason lapse more than five between entry hearing request relief. view facts: 3 "Benchimol plead guilty. concedes exchange promised restitution. However, at hearing, presentence report incorrectly stated would stand silent. Benchimol's counsel informed court instead recommended 4 Assistant Attorney then stated: 'That accurate representation.' " Ibid. 5 concluded breached because, although concurred defense counsel's statement restitution, "made no effort explain reasons agreeing lenient rather left impression less-than-enthusiastic support leniency." 6 We think misconceives effect relevant rules applicable case law. 11(e) provides elaborate formula negotiation bargains, allows attorney agree move dismissal other charges specific appropriate disposition case. It authorizes make particular or not oppose defendant's such understanding shall binding court. 7 may well might commit itself "enthusiastically" court, Government's making recommendation. But does contend, nor did find, fact undertaken do either these things here. simply held as matter law undertaking implied from agreement sentence. our speaks what parties to, suggest implied-in-law were read any place Rule. 8 relied cases v. Grandinetti, 564 723 (CA5 1977), Brown, 500 375 (CA4 1974), conclusion reached respect requirement "enthusiasm," appears us each appearing personally expressed personal reservations committed itself. This quite different proposition appellate determination transcript record made many earlier "left When agrees must carry out recommendation; even if bargaining degrees enthusiasm, there been none 9 contemplate make. suggests spreading case—for example, wish devote scarce resources trial defendant, wished avoid calling victim witness—would frequently harm, help, quest leniency. These why defendant exact commitment Government, purposes enough fact. Since generally bargains make, error imply term themselves upon. 10 For reasons, we conclude default case, say nothing remediable attack 32(d), August 1, 1983. See Hill States, 368 424, 428, 82 468, 471, 417 (1962). petition certiorari accordingly granted, judgment 11 Reversed. * 12 Justice STEVENS, concurring judgment. 13 Whether complied 11(e), I error, any, serious 2255. here "not fundamental defect inherently results complete miscarriage justice, omission inconsistent rudimentary demands fair procedure." Nor resulted "manifest injustice." Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 32(d). If erred failing affirmatively proper object direct appeal. "[T]here basis allowing 'to service appeal.' Timmreck, 441 780, 784, 99 2085, 2087, 60 634 (1979) (quoting Sunal Large, 332 174, 178, 67 1588, 1590, 91 L.Ed. 1982 (1947) ). 14 Accordingly, concur 15 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, dissenting. 16 today continues unsettling practice summarily reversing decisions rendered favor criminal defendants, based broad principle idiosyncratic without full briefing oral argument. See, e.g., Gagnon, 470 522, 530-531, 1482, ----, 84 486 (1985) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Florida Meyers, 466 380, 383, 104 1852, 1854, 80 381 (1984) (STEVENS, Wyrick Fields, 459 42, 50, 103 394, 397, 74 214 (1982) (MARSHALL, dissenting). Because find one-sided summary correction* inappropriate, merely deny certiorari. respectfully dissent. Our reversals are dissent claims. per curiam Smith Illinois, 469 91, 490, 83 488 (1984); Thompson Louisiana, 17, 409, 246 Payne Virginia, 468 1062, 3573, 801 (1984). 27 noncapital involving convictions over last four Terms. Twenty-four favored warden prosecutor. ante, 456-457; (per curiam); Woodward, 105, 611, 518 Rodriguez, 308, 165 Massachusetts Upton, 727, 721 386, n. 3, 1855, curiam) dissenting) (collecting cases).

Classification Label: 0