Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
U.S. v Cudjoe
534 F.3d 1349
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
Decided on July 29, 2008
Issue:
Government Advocates for Harsher Sentence Despite Plea Agreement
Whether the Government breached the plea agreement with defendant Cudjoe when it advocated for a sentence greater than thirty years despite stipulating otherwise in the agreement.
Holding:
Government Breaches Agreement
The Tenth Circuit held that the Government breached the agreement when it unilaterally decided that Cudjoe breached the agreement, so it advocated for a sentence greater than thirty years despite promising otherwise.
Federal Criminal Appeals Lawyer call 1-800-APPEALS (1-800-277-3257)
Facts:
Defendant Cudjoe pled guilty to 1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and distribution of a controlled substance and 2) carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Per the agreement, Cudjoe stated he would ask the district court for a sentence of 260 months’ imprisonment and the Government agreed to not object, so long as Cudjoe “stayed factually accurate.” As part of the agreement, the parties agreed that the government would take the position that 1) more than 30 kg of crack was attributable to defendant, 2) defendant should be assigned a leadership role in the offense, and 3) defendant should receive an obstruction of justice enhancement.
The U.S. Probations Office prepared a presentence report (PSR) that applied a four-level enhancement for Cudjoe’s leadership role in the conspiracy, a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice and brandishing a firearm during his pursuit by police, and a two-level enhancement for obstruction of justice for communicating threats through a third party to a witness, for a total offense level of 46. The final enhancement was not addressed in the plea agreement, and Cudjoe filed several objections to the PSR, including the obstruction of justice and leadership enhancements. Defendant claimed the PSR relied on unreliable hearsay as to the two-point obstruction of justice enhancement, and that his actions did not fit within the definition of an organizer or leader to satisfy the leadership enhancement. The court granted defendant’s objection to the obstruction of justice enhancement and applied a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility for a total offense level of 42. After ruling on the objections, the Government advocated for a sentence of 360 months to life to “protect society from him in any and all future events.”
In closing remarks, defense counsel requested a thirty-year sentence and reminded the court of the plea agreement where the Government agreed to request a sentence of 30 years. The government responded, “Your honor…I didn’t say that….The response, there’s no objection. I would stand mute if everything was factually accurate and there’s a great difference in my way of thinking to objections to do it.” The court sentenced defendant to 360 months’ imprisonment for the conspiracy conviction and 60 months’ imprisonment for the firearm conviction, for a total of 420 months’ imprisonment.
Defendant appealed, arguing the Government breached the agreement by arguing for the obstruction of justice and leadership enhancements and advocating for a sentence in excess of thirty years. The Government argues that defendant placed facts in dispute when he objected to the PSR, thereby releasing the government from its obligation to stand mute.
Analysis:
Government Cannot Unilaterally Declare a Breach
The Tenth Circuit must determine each party’s reasonable understanding of the plea agreement. In the email incorporated into the agreement, the government agreed not to object to a thirty-year sentence “providing everything stays factually accurate with [Cudjoe].” The Court held that the parties understood “factually accurate” to mean defendant would not make any factually inaccurate statements in his objections to the PSR or at sentencing. Nothing in the agreement prohibited defendant from making legal arguments in opposition to the enhancements. Indeed, the agreement gives defendant the right to “advocate for, and present evidence relevant to, guideline adjustments and sentencing factors.” Though the Government alleges Cudjoe made factually inaccurate statements in objecting to the PSR, it does not identify any particular statement of Cudjoe’s that it claims is false.
Furthermore, the Tenth Circuit explained that if the pleadings do reveal a factual dispute on the issue of a breach of plea agreement, the district court must hold a hearing to resolve the factual issues. In other words, the government may not unilaterally declare a defendant’s breach. The Government never raised this alleged breach before the district court, and even if Cudjoe had breached the plea agreement, the Government is not released from its promise until the district court so ruled. The Court found, therefore, that the Government breached the government. It reversed Cudjoe’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing before a different judge.