5 F.4th 110
1st Cir.2021Background
- Gardner pled guilty under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement stipulating a 120‑month sentence; the agreement said the defendant may withdraw his plea if the court "will not accept the plea agreement under Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(3)(A)."
- The plea agreement included a breach clause allowing the government (but not expressly the defendant) to withdraw pre‑sentencing if Gardner committed criminal activity.
- While detained pre‑sentencing Gardner assaulted a fellow inmate; the government moved to withdraw from the plea agreement and the district court found the assault occurred and granted the government’s motion.
- Sixteen days later Gardner moved to withdraw his guilty plea; the district court denied the motion, concluding the government’s withdrawal did not trigger the defendant’s right to withdraw (the court had not affirmatively "rejected" the agreement under Rule 11(c)(5)).
- The district court then sentenced Gardner to 160 months; on appeal the First Circuit held the district court abused its discretion in denying plea withdrawal and vacated the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gardner could withdraw his guilty plea after the government withdrew from the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement due to Gardner's pre‑sentencing breach | Government: Gardner remains bound to his plea; his breach does not entitle him to withdraw; district court properly denied withdrawal | Gardner: Agreement’s clause giving the defendant an "opportunity to withdraw" if the court will not accept the agreement applies whenever the agreement is not accepted for any reason, including government withdrawal | Held for Gardner: the agreement’s "will not accept" language covers the circumstance here and gave Gardner a right to seek withdrawal once the stipulated sentence was not imposed |
| Whether the district court had in fact "accepted" the plea agreement (so withdrawal right would not be triggered) | Government: District court effectively accepted/enforced the agreement; only an affirmative rejection under Rule 11(c)(5) triggers the defendant’s withdrawal right | Gardner: The court never accepted the agreement (it did not impose the stipulated sentence), so the agreement’s non‑acceptance condition was met | Held for Gardner: the court did not accept the agreement; "not accept" is broader than a formal Rule 11 rejection and was met when the stipulated sentence was not imposed |
| Whether precedent (e.g., Tilley) bars withdrawal by a defendant who breached his plea agreement | Government: Tilley and related decisions support refusing withdrawal when defendant breaches | Gardner: Tilley is distinguishable because its plea language provided a different remedy structure; here the agreement’s terms and contract principles allow withdrawal | Held for Gardner: Tilley is distinguishable on its contract language; the plea agreement here did not preclude withdrawal after government rescission |
| Whether the Rule 11(d)(2)(B) "fair and just reason" factors justify withdrawal (timing, voluntariness, innocence, government prejudice, breach) | Government: Factors weigh against withdrawal — plea was knowing, no innocence claim, significant breach, delay and likely prejudice | Gardner: Factors favor withdrawal — agreement expressly promised opportunity to withdraw, motion was prompt after withdrawal, government alleges no concrete prejudice | Held for Gardner: On balance the contract‑based reason and prompt timing outweigh countervailing factors; district court abused its discretion in denying withdrawal |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) (distinguishes acceptance of plea agreement from acceptance of a guilty plea)
- United States v. Tilley, 964 F.2d 66 (1st Cir. 1992) (refused plea withdrawal after defendant breached agreement; analyzed under plea‑specific language)
- United States v. Newbert, 504 F.3d 180 (1st Cir. 2007) (plea agreements interpreted under basic contract principles and reasonable understanding of the defendant)
- United States v. Cimino, 381 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2004) (government may seek specific performance or treat defendant’s breach as cancellation)
- United States v. Alexander, 869 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1989) (specific performance can bind defendant to guilty plea despite government rescission)
- United States v. Ramos, 810 F.2d 308 (1st Cir. 1987) (timing of plea‑withdrawal motion probative of motive)
- United States v. Kobrosky, 711 F.2d 449 (1st Cir. 1983) (prejudice to the government — e.g., reassembling witnesses — is a key factor against withdrawal)
- United States v. Dunfee, 821 F.3d 120 (1st Cir. 2016) (lists relevant factors for evaluating pre‑sentencing plea withdrawal)