Court Opinion

ID: 9488545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:48:18.847489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:57.029628
License: Public Domain

FERGUSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
Because the district court violated both the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Evidence by sua sponte vacating the defendant’s accepted guilty plea, I must dissent.
The defendant in this case was charged in a one count indictment for unlawful entry into the United States after having been deported as an aggravated felon. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). He pleaded not guilty, but subsequently entered into a plea agreement with the government. In accord with the plea agreement, the defendant agreed to plead guilty to the lesser included offense of illegal reentry, 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a), in exchange for dismissal of the greater offense.
At his ehange-of-plea hearing, the defendant pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense. The district judge questioned the defendant and ascertained that the he was acting voluntarily, that he understood all his rights, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The district judge unconditionally accepted his guilty plea to the lesser included offense.
The district court then ordered a presen-tence report. After reading the report, the district judge rejected the plea agreement and, over defendant’s objection, vacated the guilty plea to the lesser included offense and set the matter for trial. The defendant was convicted and sentenced to seventy months imprisonment. The maximum sentence allowable on the lesser included offense was two years.
While the district court may have had the authority to reject the plea agreement, it did not have the authority to vacate the defendant’s plea after it had been accepted nor did it have the authority to sentence the defendant to a prison term longer than that permitted for the offense for which the court had accepted the defendant’s guilty plea.
I.
The first and most important issue in this case is whether jeopardy attached when the district court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to the lesser included offense. Jeopardy attaches upon acceptance of a guilty plea. *1558United States v. Smith, 912 F.2d 322, 324 (9th Cir.1990) (holding that “jeopardy ordinarily attaches upon the acceptance of a guilty plea, in part, because it is the formal plea that exposes the defendant to conviction”); Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242, 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711-12, 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969) (holding that “[a] plea of guilty ... is itself a conviction ... [after which] nothing remains but to give judgment and determine punishment”).
The Supreme Court in Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977), held that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits prosecution of a defendant for a greater offense when he has already been convicted on a lesser included offense. Id. at 169, 97 S.Ct. at 2227. Section 1326(a) to which the defendant pleaded guilty is a lesser included offense of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Under Blockburger, two offenses are separate if “each ... requires proof of a fact which the other does not.” Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) (emphasis added). Section 1326(b)(2) defines a violator as “any alien described in ... subsection [ (a) ] ... (2) whose deportation was subsequent to a conviction for commission of an aggravated felony.” 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). Section 1326(a) requires no proof of an element not included in § 1326(b)(2) and is therefore a lesser included offense.
The majority rely on United States v. Sanchez, 609 F.2d 761, 763 (5th Cir.1980), for their proposition that jeopardy did not attach upon the district court’s acceptance of the defendant’s plea. In Sanchez, however, the district court explicitly deferred acceptance of both the plea and the plea agreement. The Sanchez Court even recognized in dictum that if the offense to which the defendant pleaded guilty had been established as a lesser included offense, then double jeopardy would have barred his prosecution on the greater offense. Id. at 762 (citations omitted). Here, unlike Sanchez, the district court accepted the defendant’s plea to a lesser included offense; therefore, the court was constitutionally barred from vacating the accepted plea and allowing the defendant to be tried on the greater charge. Brown, 432 U.S. at 169, 97 S.Ct. at 2227.
The Double Jeopardy Clause not only applies to this case, but it demands that the defendant’s original plea be reinstated and that he be resentenced in accord with that plea.
II.
The second issue in this case is whether the district court was precluded by the Federal Rules of Evidence from vacating the defendant’s accepted plea. The majority holds that there was no violation of either Rule 11(e) or Rule 32(b)(3) because the district court implied that its acceptance of the defendant’s plea was conditioned on its review of the presentenee report. The record is clear, however, that the district court did not condition its acceptance of the defendant’s plea.
The majority recognize that Rule 32(b)(3) was enacted to protect defendants from the prejudice that might result if, before being convicted, the court is exposed to the contents of a presentence report, which typically contains hearsay and facts collateral to the issue of guilt or innocence. Gregg v. United States, 394 U.S. 489, 89 S.Ct. 1134, 22 L.Ed.2d 442 (1969); United States v. Cruz, 709 F.2d 111, 115 (1st Cir.1983). Rule 11(e) governs plea agreements and establishes that a district court may choose to accept an agreement, to reject an agreement, or to defer its decision until it has had the opportunity to review the presentence report. Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(e)(2). In Cruz, the First Circuit considered the interplay between Rules 11 and 32, recognizing that these rules preclude a trial court from using information contained in the presentence report in its initial decision to accept or reject a plea, unless it has the defendant’s consent. Cruz, 709 F.2d at 115. This makes good sense. To hold otherwise “would completely vitiate the protective consent requirements embodied in Rules 11(e) and 32[ (b)(3)].” Id.
The majority rely on the Fifth Circuit to support their holding that the plea is “inextricably bound” to the plea agreement. Sanchez, 609 F.2d at 762; United States v. Foy, *155928 F.3d 464 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 610, 130 L.Ed.2d 520 (1994). Sanchez, however, does not conclude that all pleas are inextricably linked to plea agreements, but rather, finds that the particular plea and plea agreement in issue were not severable. Sanchez, 609 F.2d at 762. As discussed supra, the majority’s reliance on Sanchez is misplaced.
In Foy, the Fifth Circuit concluded that § 6Bl.l(c) of the Sentencing Guidelines makes a district court’s acceptance of a guilty plea “contingent upon the court’s review of the presentence report.” Foy, 28 F.3d at 471. This conclusion is erroneous for two reasons. First, nothing in the Sentencing Guidelines purports to establish rules for the acceptance of pleas. Chapter 6 of the Guidelines addresses plea agreements and recommends that all plea agreements be conditionally accepted pending a court’s review of the presentence report. USSG § 6Bl.l(c), p.s. Such a rule serves a logical end. Plea agreements concern sentencing and the Sentencing Guidelines were drafted with the intent of conforming sentences. A judge’s discretion to accept or reject a valid plea is not regulated in any way by the Guidelines. See United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 117-18 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 505 U.S. 1210, 112 S.Ct. 3008, 120 L.Ed.2d 882 (1992).
The second reason that this Court should reject that Fifth Circuit’s reasoning in Foy is because Chapter 6 of the Sentencing Guidelines contains no substantive guidelines, but consists only of policy statements. Although the Supreme Court has held that where the Guidelines’ policy statements interpret substantive guidelines, they are binding on the courts, Stinson v. United States, — U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 1913, 1917-18, 123 L.Ed.2d 598 (1993); Williams v. United States, 503 U.S. 193, 200-201, 112 S.Ct. 1112, 1119-20, 117 L.Ed.2d 341 (1992), the policy statements in Chapter 6 do not interpret substantive guidelines.
The Sentencing Guidelines itself explains that:
The Commission decided not to make major changes in plea agreement practices in the initial guidelines, but rather to provide guidance by issuing general policy statements concerning the acceptance of plea agreements in Chapter Six, Part B (Plea Agreements). The rules set forth in Fed. R.Crim.P. 11(e) govern the acceptance or rejection of such agreements.
USSG Ch. 1, Pt. A(4)(c) (emphasis added). While the Supreme Court amended Rule 32 to conform to the Guidelines, it has not amended Rule 11(e)(2). The language of Rule 11(e)(2) giving a court discretion in whether to accept, reject or defer acceptance of a plea agreement pending review of the presentence report conflicts with the recommendations in Chapter 6 of the Sentencing Guidelines. According to the Supreme Court in Williams and to the Guidelines themselves, the Federal Rule governs in such a conflict. Williams, 503 U.S. at 200-201, 112 S.Ct. at 1119-20; USSG Ch. 1, Pt. A(4)(c).
The Supreme Court has had ample time to amend Rule 11 to conform to the Guidelines’ policy statement on plea agreements, but has chosen not to do so. This Circuit continues to hold that a plea accepted in open court is binding on the parties. United States v. Floyd, 1 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir.1993); United States v. Savage, 978 F.2d 1136, 1138 (9th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1613, 123 L.Ed.2d 174 (1993); United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629, 631 (9th Cir.1988).
I must agree with the First Circuit’s analysis in Cruz and remind the majority of our own prior decision in United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629 (9th Cir.1988). In that ease, we held that “a district court’s authority under the [Federal] Rules to revisit an accepted guilty plea is limited.” Id. at 632 (quoting United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325, 1338-39 (D.C.Cir.1983)). The Federal Rules only allow the court to vacate a plea under three circumstances: (1) if it subsequently discovers there is no factual basis for the plea; (2) upon a showing by the defendant of any fair and just reason, or (3) if there has been fraud on the court. Id. at 631-32. None of these circumstances exists in this case. See also United States v. Kurkculer, 918 F.2d 295, 301 (1st Cir.1990).
The majority claim that neither Cruz nor Partida-Parra are good law any longer be*1560cause they were decided before the enactment of the Sentencing Guidelines. As explained swpra, Section 6Bl.l(c) simply does not speak to this issue. The majority reaches its decision by finding a conditional acceptance of a guilty plea where one does not exist. The district court unequivocally accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to the lesser included offense of illegal reentry. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2). As a result, he cannot be tried and sentenced for the greater crime of unlawful entry into the United States after having been deported as an aggravated felon. 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2).
In this case, the defendant pleaded not guilty to the lesser crime and that plea was accepted. It was a violation of both the Constitution and the Federal Rules of Evidence for the district court to sua sponte vacate his plea and to subsequently try and convict him on the greater offense. The Sentencing Guidelines cannot change that. This case should be remanded for sentencing in accord with the offense for which the defendant’s plea was accepted — illegal reentry.