United States v. Heredia
768 F.3d 1220
9th Cir.2014Background
- The government used fast-track plea deals in Southwest border illegal reentry prosecutions to expedite convictions and reduce court workload.
- Morales entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) fast-track plea agreement promising a binding recommended sentence and supervised release, not binding the district court.
- Morales pleaded guilty to illegal reentry under 8 U.S.C. §1326(a) with a four‑level fast-track downward adjustment.
- The PSR revealed extensive prior convictions; the district court planned a six‑month term at the low end of the guidelines plus three years of supervised release.
- The government made inflammatory, prejudicial statements about Morales’s criminal history in its sentencing position, despite the united-front promise of the agreement.
- The district court rejected the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement; Morales sought relief for breach, leading to vacatur of the sentence and remand for reassignment to a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement? | Morales alleges breach due to inflammatory advocacy. | Govt. contends statements were permissible to explain history. | Yes, breach found; statements violated the bargain. |
| What is the remedy for breach when a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement is involved? | Morales seeks specific performance and remand to a different judge. | Remedy should restore fairness, not vacate conviction. | Vacatur and remand to a different judge required. |
| Can the breach be cured on appeal or after remand? | Remand necessary to preserve integrity of the bargain. | Post-breach cure possible if district court cures before proceedings. | Remand before a different judge required; cannot cure by later actions. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (promises in plea bargains must be fulfilled)
- Mondragon, 228 F.3d 978 (9th Cir. 2000) (government comments breached when they added no new information and favored harsher sentence)
- Whitney, 673 F.3d 965 (9th Cir. 2012) (implicit or explicit breach when prosecutor seeks harsher sentence than promised)
- Camarillo-Tello, 236 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir. 2001) (united front breach concept in plea agreements)
- Alcala-Sanchez, 666 F.3d 571 (9th Cir. 2012) (breach analysis and cure limitations for Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreements)