United States v. Alcala-Sanchez
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 470
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Alcala pled guilty to being a deported alien found in the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1326.
- The plea was governed by a Fast-Track plea agreement with the government.
- Plea terms included a total offense level of 12 and a 33-month sentence as the ceiling by agreement.
- PSR calculated offense level 20 and 63–78 months, treating Alcala’s 1993 dissuading a witness conviction as a crime of violence (plus 16).
- The government initially filed a sentencing chart recommending a 20/offense level and 78-month sentence.
- At sentencing, the government later admitted error and attempted to argue for the agreed level 12 and 33-month sentence, but the court ultimately applied a plus-16 enhancement and 63–78 months before downward departure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement? | Alcala: breach occurred via higher range than agreed. | Alcala: breach invalidated the bargain; harmed protection. | Yes, breach occurred; remanded for resentencing before a different judge. |
| What remedy is appropriate for the breach? | Remand to a different judge for resentencing. | Remand is appropriate to prevent prejudice. | Remand for resentencing before a different district judge. |
| Does the breach affect standard of review or require different treatment of the judge? | Strict compliance required; breach cannot be cured by later correction. | Remedy should restore bargain integrity. | Breach cannot be cured; strict compliance required; conclusion unaffected by standard of review. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (N.Y. 1971) (breach requires specific performance to honor plea bargain's terms)
- Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2000) (government must comply with plea terms; breach remedies applicable)
- Gunn v. Ignacio, 263 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2001) (breach effects cannot be cured by later statements; integrity of process)
- Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001) (united front requirement; breach harms perceived by court)
- Ellis, 641 F.3d 411 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing plea-breach claims varies, not outcome-determinative)
- Salemo, 81 F.3d 1453 (9th Cir. 1996) (clarifies standards for breach analysis)
- Kurkculer, 918 F.2d 295 (1st Cir. 1990) (illustrates remedial limits when correcting breach)