United States v. Frownfelter
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 24555
10th Cir.2010Background
- Indictment charged eleven counts of theft of government funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641; counts 1–10 and 11, with intro and chart alleging aggregate improper payments.
- Plea agreement: Frownfelter pled guilty to count eleven and government dismissed counts 1–10; the agreement stated plea terms but did not clearly resolve felony/misdemeanor labeling.
- At change of plea, district court and plea materials treated the offense as a felony, and Frownfelter indicated understanding it as such.
- Presentence Report described the offense as a felony; district court sentenced to one year and one day, dismissing counts 1–10.
- After restitution paid, government conceded the misdemeanor nature and urged remedy to honor the plea; district court conditioned dismissal of counts on enforcing the plea as if it were a felony.
- This court vacates the felony conviction and remands to enter a misdemeanor conviction and sentence accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper remedy for a mischaracterized plea? | Frownfelter | Frownfelter | Vacate felony conviction; remand for misdemeanor sentence |
| Does Bunner frustration of purpose apply to reinstate dismissed counts? | United States argues frustration of purpose | Frownfelter | Frustration of purpose fails; cannot reinstate counts |
| Does mutual mistake justify rescission of the plea agreement? | United States relies on mutual mistake | Frownfelter | Mutual mistake not proven; no rescission |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bunner, 134 F.3d 1000 (10th Cir. 1998) (three-part Bunner test for frustration of purpose)
- United States v. VanDam, 493 F.3d 1194 (10th Cir. 2007) (plea agreements interpreted with contract principles; ambiguities construed against government)
- United States v. Lewis, 138 F.3d 840 (10th Cir. 1998) (mutual mistake doctrine applied to plea agreements)
- Spears v. Mullin, 343 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 2003) (court may reach merits for efficiency when issues are clear)
- Cook v. United States, 406 F.3d 485 (7th Cir. 2005) (rescission vs. reformation of plea agreement; mutual mistake considerations)
- United States v. Bradley, 381 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2004) (plea validity and essential terms; impact on entire agreement)
- Williams v. United States, 198 F.3d 988 (7th Cir. 1999) (mutual mistake addressed in context of plea remedies)