United States v. Kent
649 F.3d 906
| 9th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kent was charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute crack cocaine and possession with intent to distribute five grams or more, based on 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A)(iii), 841(b)(1)(B)(iii).
- The government initially did not file a § 851 information, which would have raised penalties if Kent had prior felonies.
- Caputo told Blank that § 851 would be filed if Kent went to trial, and might not be if he pled guilty and cooperated as an informant; Kent opted to plead unconditionally at that time but with no cooperation.
- Caputo informed Blank via a February 10, 2009 letter that the government would file the § 851 information unless Kent pled guilty under a cooperation agreement.
- At a February 25, 2009 status conference, Kent announced he would enter an unconditional guilty plea, and the government proceeded to file the § 851 information in court.
- Kent moved to strike the information as vindictive; the district court denied the motion, and Kent later entered conditional guilty pleas with reservation to appeal the issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused discretion in accepting in-court filing of the § 851 information. | Kent: courtroom filing violated Rule 49/5 mechanisms and improper process. | Kent: the filing should have been struck as improper under case law. | No abuse; courtroom filing permissible under rules; district court did not err. |
| Whether vindictive-prosecution presumptions apply to pretrial charging decisions in plea contexts. | Kent: presumptive vindictiveness applies because enhanced charges followed his unconditional plea decision. | Kent: a presumption should apply; enhanced charges were punitive for exercising rights. | Presumption does not apply; de novo standard confirms no presumption of vindictiveness. |
| Whether a prosecutor may carry out a plea-bargaining threat to enhance charges when a defendant declines to cooperate but pleads unconditionally to lesser charges. | Kent: such threats are impermissible vindictiveness. | Kent: precedent allows charging and bargaining as context permits; threat permissible. | Prosecutor may carry out threat if defendant declines cooperation, regardless of unconditional plea willingness. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368 (U.S. 1982) (vindictive-prosecution standards; pretrial charging discretion)
- Bordenkircher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357 (U.S. 1978) (plea bargaining and threats to prosecute; not punishing exercise of rights)
- Gamez-Orduno v. United States, 235 F.3d 453 (9th Cir. 2000) (presumption of vindictiveness foregone in plea-context charging)
- Austin v. United States, 902 F.2d 743 (9th Cir. 1990) (no presumption from pretrial charging after assertion of rights)
- Gardner v. United States, 611 F.2d 770 (9th Cir. 1980) (conditioning plea deals on non-plea terms is permissible)
- United States v. Navaro-Botello, 912 F.2d 318 (9th Cir. 1990) (acceptance of plea terms beyond pleading)
- United States v. Acuna, 9 F.3d 1442 (9th Cir. 1993) (disclosing evidence as plea-condition)
- United States v. Edmonson, 792 F.2d 1492 (9th Cir. 1986) (separation of powers; prosecutorial charging discretion)
- United States v. Morris, 928 F.2d 575 (2d Cir. 1991) (context of plea agreements and cooperation considerations)
- United States v. Lopez, 474 F.3d 1208 (9th Cir. 2007) (vindictive-prosecution standards and de novo review)