United States v. Joshua Bower
702 F. App'x 165
4th Cir.2017Background
- Joshua Bower pled guilty, via a written plea agreement, to conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, Hobbs Act robbery, using/carrying a firearm during a crime of violence (§ 924(c)), and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
- The district court sentenced Bower to 294 months’ imprisonment; Bower appealed after counsel filed an Anders brief raising possible plea-related defects.
- Bower (through counsel) argued his first attorney was ineffective or that the Government committed misconduct/breached promises during plea negotiations concerning a shooting that occurred during the charged conspiracy.
- The plea agreement contained an integration/merger clause and only promised the Government would agree to an acceptance-of-responsibility reduction; it did not expressly limit restitution for the shooting victim.
- The conspiracy indictment listed the shooting as an overt act; the district court retained an independent statutory duty to calculate restitution for mandatory restitution offenses.
- The Fourth Circuit affirmed, concluding the merger clause barred enforcement of any contrary oral/implied promises and that restitution for the shooting was for the court to determine; ineffective-assistance claims that do not appear on the record should be raised under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Government breached plea agreement by failing to honor alleged oral/implied promises about the shooting | Bower: Government/plea negotiations promised favorable treatment (e.g., limiting restitution or consequences for the shooting) | Gov't: Plea agreement’s integration clause controls; no such promises in the written plea deal | Court: No breach — integration clause supersedes any contrary oral/implied promises |
| Whether the district court was bound by the plea agreement as to restitution for the shooting victim | Bower: Restitution for the shooting should have been limited by plea negotiations | Gov't: Court has independent statutory duty to calculate restitution; plea did not bar restitution for the shooting | Court: District court properly could determine restitution; plea did not restrict court’s restitution duties |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to secure/protect alleged plea promises | Bower: Trial counsel ineffective for not enforcing/obtaining alleged promises | Gov't: No clear record showing ineffectiveness; claim not evident on face of record | Court: Ineffectiveness not apparent on record; should be raised, if at all, in a § 2255 motion |
| Whether Dean v. United States affects sentencing/variance here | Bower: Suggested Dean might apply to his case | Gov't: District court already recognized discretion to vary downward under § 3553(a) | Court: Dean does not change outcome; district court had discretion to vary and considered § 3553(a) factors |
Key Cases Cited
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promises that induce a plea must be fulfilled)
- Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) (procedures for appointed counsel who finds appeal frivolous)
- United States v. Bowe, 257 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 2001) (standard of review for plea-agreement breach: factual findings for clear error; contract interpretation de novo)
- United States v. Barefoot, 754 F.3d 226 (4th Cir. 2014) (integration clauses in plea agreements are enforced like contract integration clauses)
- United States v. Gamma Tech Indus., Inc., 265 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2001) (a plea agreement does not necessarily limit a court’s independent restitution determination)