United States v. Jesus Lara
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18495
| 8th Cir. | 2012Background
- Lara pled guilty to distribution of methamphetamine under 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B)(viii) and was sentenced to 130 months.
- The plea agreement included a specific drug-quantity stipulation: at least 20 but less than 35 grams, yielding a base offense level of 28 under U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1.
- The PSR calculated a much larger quantity: 322.30 grams of methamphetamine for guideline purposes.
- At sentencing, the government introduced evidence of uncharged conduct and controlled buys, expanding the PSR quantity beyond the stipulation.
- Lara objected broadly to the PSR amount but did not explicitly argue the plea agreement was breached at sentencing; the court allowed the evidence.
- The panel held that the government breached the plea agreement by presenting evidence beyond the stipulated quantity and that the district court erred in allowing it, vacating and remanding for resentencing before a different judge.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the government breach the plea agreement by presenting PSR quantity evidence at sentencing? | Lara argues the government presented higher quantities in violation of the stipulation. | Lara contends the general references to relevant conduct do not override the specific quantity stipulation. | Yes; government breach; remand for resentencing. |
| Was the breach preserved for appeal or reviewed only for plain error? | Lara preserved via objection to quantity in the PSR; framed breach | The breach theory was not explicitly raised; reviewed as plain error | Plain-error review applied; substantial rights affected. |
| Does a general 'relevant conduct' clause trump a specific drug-quantity stipulation in a plea agreement? | General provisions can be construed to permit broader evidence | Specific quantity/level stipulations prevail over general provisions | Specific stipulation prevails; general clause does not override. |
| What is the remedy for a plea-breach at sentencing? | Remand to impose correct sentence consistent with the plea | Not addressed beyond the breach finding | Vacate judgment and remand for resentencing before a different judge. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. DeWitt, 366 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2004) (specific stipulations prevail over general plea terms)
- United States v. Stobaugh, 420 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2005) (ambiguities construed against the government)
- United States v. Rivera, 357 F.3d 290 (3d Cir. 2004) (context of plea agreements and evidence at sentencing)
- United States v. Granados, 168 F.3d 343 (8th Cir. 1999) (breach of plea agreement affects sentence length)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (U.S. 1971) (plea bargains require honoring promises, with consequences for breach)
- United States v. Lovelace, 565 F.3d 1080 (8th Cir. 2009) (plain-error standard for unpreserved plea-issue errors)
- United States v. Keller, 413 F.3d 706 (8th Cir. 2005) (plain-error framework and impact on fair proceedings)
- Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S. 129 (U.S. 2009) (preservation and plain-error analysis for plea issues)
- United States v. Smith, 590 F.3d 570 (8th Cir. 2009) (preservation standards for plea-related objections)