8 F.4th 444
6th Cir.2021Background
- Davian Warren pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm under a written plea agreement in which the Government agreed to "recommend that the Court impose a sentence within" the Guidelines range (51–63 months) and to not "suggest in any way" that a departure or variance was appropriate.
- At the first sentencing the district court upwardly varied to 120 months; this Court vacated that sentence as substantively unreasonable and remanded for resentencing.
- At resentencing the prosecutor said the Government "quite probably would have made different recommendations had it known" that prior felonious-assault convictions involved actual shootings, and recounted violent facts; defense counsel objected that this undermined the plea agreement.
- The district court imposed a 96-month sentence and found the Government had not repudiated the plea agreement; Warren appealed, preserving his objection to an alleged breach.
- The Sixth Circuit held the Government breached the plea agreement by "suggest[ing] in any way" a variance was appropriate, vacated the 96‑month sentence, and remanded for resentencing before a different district judge.
Issues
| Issue | Warren's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Government breached the plea agreement by "suggest[ing] in any way" that a variance was appropriate | Government’s remarks that it would have recommended differently and its descriptions of shootings amounted to a suggestion that the Guidelines range was inadequate | The Government repeatedly recommended a Guidelines sentence and did not explicitly ask for a variance; the district court did not treat the remarks as a repudiation | Breach found: the plain-language promise was broad and the prosecutor’s comments, by implication and context, suggested a variance and undermined the plea bargain |
| Proper remedy for the breach | Vacatur and resentencing before a different district judge | Reassignment unnecessary because the court said it was not influenced | Remedy: vacate sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge |
| Substantive reasonableness of the 96‑month sentence | The sentence remained substantively unreasonable | The sentence was supported by Warren’s violent history and conduct | Court did not reach the substantive‑reasonableness issue because the breach was dispositive |
| Whether plea‑agreement breaches are reviewed for harmlessness | Santobello requires enforcement of plea promises and preserves rule of automatic reversal when objection preserved | The Government did not press harmlessness below and conceded the issue | Majority did not decide harmless‑error rule; concurrence urges reconsideration and suggests harmlessness review may be appropriate in future cases |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (prosecutor promises inducing a plea must be fulfilled)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (discusses preserved‑objection rule for plea breaches and harmless‑error doctrine)
- United States v. Ligon, 937 F.3d 714 (6th Cir. 2019) (treats plea agreements as contracts; vacatur and reassignment remedy for government breach)
- United States v. Barnes, 278 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2002) (defendants waive rights in plea bargains; enforcement of prosecutor promises)
- United States v. Moncivais, 492 F.3d 652 (6th Cir. 2007) (prosecutors held to meticulous standards; no end‑runs around plea promises)
- United States v. Vaval, 404 F.3d 144 (2d Cir. 2005) (discusses limits on prosecutor advocacy when plea promises exist)