United States v. Kent
2011 WL 2020853
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kent delivered 22.7 grams of crack to an FBI source in San Francisco (July 16, 2008).
- He was charged by indictment with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute five grams or more of crack and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more, under 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii).
- The government did not initially file the § 851 information asserting prior felonies, which would substantially raise the penalty range.
- The government stated it would file § 851 information if Kent went to trial; Kent indicated an unconditional guilty plea and no cooperation agreement.
- The government then informed Kent it would file § 851 information unless Kent agreed to a cooperation plea; Kent rejected cooperation and planned to plead unconditionally.
- The district court allowed the courtroom filing of the § 851 information; later, Kent pleaded conditionally with consent to appeal; the court sentenced him to the enhanced mandatory minimum of ten years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion by accepting the courtroom filing of the §851 information after Kent signaled an unconditional guilty plea. | Kent argues the court should not have file-stamped the information given the pending plea. | Government contends the court has inherent management discretion and filing was permissible under rules. | No abuse; filing was permissible under governing rules and court management authority. |
| Whether pretrial charging enhancements based on plea threats implicate vindictiveness or require de novo review. | Kent contends enhancements based on plea threats are vindictive and require scrutiny. | Government asserts de novo review is proper for legal questions and that pretrial decisions are entitled to deference. | De novo review applies for legal questions; pretrial enhancements alone do not create a presumption of vindictiveness. |
| Whether the plea-threat to enhance charges, executed when Kent rejected cooperation, violated due process. | Kent argues this constituted vindictive prosecution. | Government argues plea bargaining is permissible; good faith and defendant自由 to accept or reject offers. | Permissible under plea bargaining doctrine; no vindictiveness shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1978) (upholds that harsh charges may be used in plea negotiations if defendant free to accept or reject)
- Goodwin v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1982) (presumption of vindictiveness not applicable to pretrial charging decisions)
- Gamez-Orduno v. United States, 235 F.3d 453 (9th Cir., 2000) (presumption of vindictiveness not triggered by pretrial charge enhancements; plea context discussed)
- North (United States v. North), 746 F.2d 627 (9th Cir., 1984) (government may offer reduced charges or threaten rein indictment during plea negotiations; may seek cooperation)
- Gardner v. United States, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir., 1980) (conditioning plea deals on cooperation or other terms permissible)
- Edmonson v. United States, 792 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir., 1986) (prosecutorial charging decisions vested in prosecutors; due process does not bar enhanced charges per se)
- Austin v. United States, 902 F.2d 743 (9th Cir., 1990) (vindictiveness not presumed in pretrial enhancements)
- Wasman v. United States, 468 U.S. 559 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1984) (vindictiveness due-process standard in pretrial context clarified)
- Jenkins v. United States, 504 F.3d 694 (9th Cir., 2007) (vindictiveness standards in post-plea contexts refined)
- Lopez v. United States, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir., 2007) (de novo review applied to vindictive-prosecution questions in some contexts)
- Gann v. United States, 732 F.2d 714 (9th Cir., 1984) (discusses standard of review for vindictive-prosecution claims)