37 F.4th 1190
6th Cir.2022Background
- Grand jury indicted Damone Bell on two counts: distribution resulting in death (Count 1) and possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl (Count 2).
- Bell signed an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement to plead guilty to the charged counts including a government-consented lesser included offense in Count 1 and the parties agreed to a 168‑month sentence.
- At plea colloquy the court accepted Bell’s guilty pleas but deferred ruling on the plea agreement pending the PSR; the government did not object at plea.
- After the PSR, the district court rejected the 11(c)(1)(C) agreement because the guidelines (6–12 months) diverged dramatically from the agreed 168 months, and advised Bell he could withdraw his plea; Bell declined.
- The court overruled the government’s request to set Count 1 for trial and sentenced Bell to 30 months; the government appealed and alternatively sought mandamus relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Bell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government may withdraw consent to a plea to a lesser included, but not indicted, offense after the court rejects an 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement | Government: its consent to the lesser plea was contingent on court acceptance of the agreement; rejection should allow the government to withdraw consent and proceed to trial on the greater charge | Bell: Rule 11 permits the court to accept pleas before deciding the agreement; when court rejects agreement, Rule 11 gives the defendant, not the government, the choice to withdraw | Held: Government cannot withdraw prior consent under Rule 11; defendant controls withdrawal after court rejects agreement |
| Whether the plea "fail‑safe" (paragraph 18) permits reinstating the greater charge or reindictment without double jeopardy problems | Government: paragraph 18 returns parties to status quo if court refuses agreement, allowing prosecution of greater charge | Bell: paragraph 18 tracks Rule 11 and does not waive double jeopardy or authorize reindictment after plea accepted and judgment entered | Held: Paragraph 18 does not authorize reinstatement or avoid double jeopardy; reindictment would be barred where defendant pleaded and judgment entered |
| Whether mandamus is appropriate to compel the district court to set trial on the greater offense | Government: seeks extraordinary relief to force trial on Count 1 | Bell: appellate remedies exist; mandamus inappropriate | Held: Mandamus denied—adequate alternative relief exists (appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) (Rule 11 contemplates guilty plea can be accepted before court decides whether to accept plea agreement)
- Ohio v. Johnson, 467 U.S. 493 (1984) (double jeopardy does not bar prosecution of remaining indicted counts when defendant pleads guilty to some counts over prosecutor's objection)
- Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S. 1 (1987) (defendant may waive certain rights as part of plea bargain; courts may enforce waivers if clear)
- Berman v. United States, 302 U.S. 211 (1937) (sentence is the judgment in a criminal case)
- United States v. Bearden, 274 F.3d 1031 (6th Cir. 2001) (jeopardy generally attaches when court accepts guilty plea)
- United States v. Sanges, 144 U.S. 310 (1892) (government cannot appeal criminal errors absent statutory authority)
- United States v. Wilson, 420 U.S. 332 (1975) (same principle regarding government appeals)
- United States v. Winans, 748 F.3d 268 (6th Cir. 2014) (plea agreements interpreted under contract principles; ambiguities construed against the government)