United States v. Jacobi Tavares Hunter
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 15827
| 11th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hunter was indicted on four drug-possession-with-intent-to-distribute counts after a traffic stop; he moved to suppress evidence and lost.
- At the suppression hearing the district court found parts of Hunter’s testimony not credible.
- After that hearing the government offered a written plea agreement: Hunter would plead guilty to all counts, and the government would recommend a 2-level (plus possible 1-level) acceptance-of-responsibility reduction under U.S.S.G. §3E1.1.
- The PSI declined to give the reduction and added a 2-level obstruction enhancement; the government did not recommend the reduction and formally opposed it at sentencing, citing the earlier credibility finding.
- The district court nevertheless applied the acceptance reduction but imposed a 60-month sentence; Hunter objected below that the government breached the plea agreement and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government breached the plea agreement by failing to recommend acceptance-of-responsibility | Hunter: Government promised to recommend the reduction and then refused and actively opposed it, breaching the plea deal | Gov: Exceptions in the plea agreement (misrepresentation; acts inconsistent with acceptance under USSG §3C1.1) excuse it, based on the pre-plea credibility finding | Breach. The government’s conduct (not recommending and opposing the reduction) was inconsistent with the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement. |
| Whether the plea-exceptions excuse the government when the facts relied on were known before the plea | Hunter: Exceptions cannot be invoked based solely on facts known to the government before making its promise | Gov: The district-court credibility finding justified invoking the exceptions and not recommending the reduction | Exceptions did not excuse the government; allowing that would render the promise illusory. |
| Whether reversal is required and what remedy is proper | Hunter: Preserved objection; seeks specific performance — resentencing under the agreement before a different judge | Gov: No remedy needed because the district court applied the acceptance reduction | Reversal required. Remedy: remand for resentencing before a different judge for specific performance (withdrawal of plea disfavored). |
| Whether Hunter’s appeal is barred by his plea waiver | Hunter: Breach claim preserved and appealable | Gov: waiver argued but breach claims are excepted | Appealable; waiver does not bar claim of government breach of plea agreement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutor’s promise in plea bargaining must be fulfilled; breach requires remedy)
- United States v. Copeland, 381 F.3d 1101 (11th Cir. 2004) (objective standard governs defendant’s reasonable understanding of plea agreements)
- United States v. Rewis, 969 F.2d 985 (11th Cir. 1992) (plea agreements construed against the government; remedies for breach)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (2009) (preserved objection to prosecutorial breach warrants reversal)
- United States v. Tobon-Hernandez, 845 F.2d 277 (11th Cir. 1988) (court may order resentencing before a different judge as specific performance remedy)