763 F.3d 818
7th Cir.2014Background
- Adame entered a written, binding Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement on Jan. 3, 2011, stipulating a base offense level of 38 and a joint recommendation of a 204‑month sentence; the government agreed not to file a § 851 information. Counts 2 and 3 were to be dismissed.
- The district court accepted Adame’s guilty plea on Jan. 3, 2011, but reserved decision whether to accept the plea agreement sentence recommendation.
- At the July 7, 2011 hearing, the government alleged Adame had breached the plea (by disputing drug‑quantity attribution in the PSR); the district court vacated the prior plea itself (rather than giving Adame the option to withdraw) and set the case for trial.
- The government obtained a second superseding indictment; Adame later filed a renewed petition and, on Oct. 5, 2011, pleaded guilty again after a confused Rule 11 colloquy. He was sentenced to 300 months (Count 1) and 240 months (Count 3), concurrent.
- On appeal Adame sought reinstatement of the original plea agreement and specific performance of the agreed 204‑month sentence, arguing the court lacked authority to withdraw his accepted plea and that he did not substantially breach the agreement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court lawfully withdrew an already‑accepted guilty plea when it rejected the plea agreement | Adame: court exceeded Rule 11 authority; once plea accepted, only defendant may withdraw it; withdrawal was improper | Government: Adame waived challenge by later pleading guilty; court acted within discretion because of alleged breach | Court held the district court abused its discretion: it lacked authority to unilaterally withdraw an accepted plea and must have allowed Adame to choose whether to withdraw under Rule 11(c)(5) |
| Whether Adame breached the plea agreement by disputing the amount he personally distributed | Adame: his objection did not contradict the stipulation (base level 38) because conspiracy‑attribution of quantity remained available | Government: the objection showed inconsistency with the stipulation and constituted a breach | Court held no breach: plea stipulated only to base offense level 38, not a personal quantity, and conspiracy attribution under §1B1.3 made his stance consistent with the agreement |
| Whether Adame’s subsequent guilty plea waived review of the district court’s earlier Rule 11 error | Government: later unconditional plea waived defects antecedent to that plea | Adame: the court’s withdrawal of the first plea raised jurisdictional/double jeopardy concerns that are not waivable | Court held the appealable issue is jurisdictional and not waived: once the first plea was accepted, jeopardy attached and the court lacked authority to relitigate the same charges without defendant’s consent |
| Appropriate remedy and further procedure | Adame: reinstate original plea agreement and 204‑month term | Government: various procedural defenses; note it did not contend court had authority to withdraw the plea | Court ordered vacatur of convictions and remand to allow Adame to maintain his original guilty plea and be sentenced under the Jan. 3, 2011 plea agreement; recommended reassignment and different prosecutor |
Key Cases Cited
- Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U.S. 258 (1973) (guilty plea waives antecedent non‑jurisdictional claims)
- Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257 (1971) (prosecutorial promise in plea bargains must be honored)
- Hyde v. United States, 520 U.S. 670 (1997) (distinguishing acceptance of a guilty plea from acceptance of a plea agreement)
- Menna v. New York, 423 U.S. 61 (1975) (guilty plea does not necessarily extinguish double jeopardy defects)
- Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974) (protecting defendants from prosecutorial retaliation by reindictment after plea)
- McCarthy v. United States, 394 U.S. 459 (1969) (Rule 11 procedural requirements entitle defendant to plead anew when not followed)
- Ellis v. United States, 356 F.3d 1198 (9th Cir. 2004) (if court rejects plea agreement after accepting plea, Rule 11 entitles defendant to withdraw plea)
- Gomez v. Berge, 434 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2006) (unconditional guilty plea waives prior non‑jurisdictional defects)
- United States v. Kelly, 337 F.3d 897 (7th Cir. 2003) (substantial breach by defendant frees government to rescind plea deal)