19-3378
7th Cir.Dec 11, 2020Background
- Wyatt pleaded guilty to conspiring to traffic a minor under a written plea agreement in which the government promised to join a joint recommendation of 120 months' imprisonment and to inform the sentencing judge about Wyatt’s post-plea cooperation.
- The plea agreement required Wyatt to cooperate and allowed the government, in its discretion, to seek a substantial-assistance departure if cooperation was substantial.
- Defense filed a sealed submission describing Wyatt’s cooperation; the government did not present or endorse that material at sentencing and did not move for a 5K.1 departure.
- At sentencing the parties jointly recommended 10 years (well below the Guidelines range of 262–327 months); the prosecutor endorsed the joint recommendation but never mentioned Wyatt’s cooperation; the court accepted the 10-year recommendation and imposed that sentence.
- Wyatt did not object at sentencing; on appeal he argued the government breached the plea agreement by failing to advise the judge of cooperation, that the breach was plain error, and that resentencing before a different judge was required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of plea agreement | Government promised to advise judge of cooperation and failed to do so | Government’s silence was harmless/technical because defense filed sealed cooperation info | Court: Government breached; silence was an obvious error |
| Prejudice (substantial rights) under plain-error test | Absence of government endorsement may have led judge to impose a sentence below 10 years | No reasonable probability of a lower sentence: court adopted joint 10-year recommendation and defense’s sealed filing existed | Court: No prejudice—Wyatt failed to show reasonable likelihood sentence would have been lower |
| Remedy (resentencing before a different judge) | Ordinary remedy for breach is vacatur and new sentencing | Remand pointless: government would still recommend 10 years and no 5K.1 motion; judge already accepted recommendation | Court: No remedy required under plain-error review; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (four-part plain-error test applied to breached prosecutorial promises)
- United States v. Navarro, 817 F.3d 494 (7th Cir. 2016) (review standards for claims of plea-agreement breach)
- United States v. Diaz-Jimenez, 622 F.3d 692 (7th Cir. 2010) (remedy for prosecutor breaking explicit sentencing recommendation promise)
- United States v. Anderson, 604 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2010) (plain-error review can fail where prejudice is unlikely)