Breach of Plea Agreement-New Mexico

Criminal defendants may choose to work out a plea agreement with the federal government rather than going to trial. In exchange for a guilty plea, the defendant may receive a shorter sentence than if he or she were to go to trial. Although the sentencing judge is not bound by the plea agreement, the judge will generally follow the government’s recommendations that the prosecutor presents at sentencing. Prosecutors do not need to present promised recommendations to the court with any particular degree of enthusiasm, but it is improper for the prosecutor to inject material reservations about the agreement to which the government has committed itself.

[1] In United States of America v. Thomas S. Cachucha, the prosecutor did just that. [2] Mr. Cachucha pleaded guilty to a charge of involuntary manslaughter under a plea agreement that anticipated a sentence of not more than 16 months' imprisonment.[3] (Mr. Cachucha was charged with a federal crime because the involuntary manslaughter occurred on an Indian Reservation.)At sentencing, however, the prosecutor expressed distress at such a short sentence and the district court sentenced him to 30 months' imprisonment.[4] Mr. Cachucha appealed his sentence to the 10th Circuit arguing that the government breached the plea agreement.

A plea agreement is treated like a contract between the government and the defendant. The court noted, “We apply general principles of contract law when interpreting a plea agreement.[5] We construe ambiguities against the government as the drafter of the document. [6] “It is well settled that we must interpret the agreement according to the defendant's reasonable understanding of its terms.” [7]

A plea agreement may be breached when “[t]he government's attorney ... [i]s not only an unpersuasive advocate for the plea agreement, but, in effect, argue[s] against it.” [8] The government agreed that it “promised to recommend that Cachucha receive a sentence within the advisory guideline range and stipulated to an adjusted-offense level of [12].” [9] In other words, it promised not to seek a higher offense level or an upward variance from the resulting Guidelines range, yet that is what the prosecutor did by complaining about the applicable Guidelines. [10] He stated that there were “problem[s]” with a Guidelines-based sentence, that such a sentence was “way too low” and “incredibly low,” and that the Guidelines did not “make sense to [him] as a professional prosecutor.” [11]

Mr. Cachucha was sentenced under the 2000 Federal Sentencing Guidelines which had a Guideline range of 10-16 months. But the prosecutor argued that if Mr. Cachucha were sentenced under the 2006 guidelines, his offense level would be substantially higher. He also argued that if Mr. Cachucha were sentenced under the New Mexico state statute for a similar offense he would have likely received 6-10 years in prison.

The appeals court found that “While it can be argued that the government stopped short of explicitly repudiating the agreement, Supreme Court precedent prohibits not only explicit repudiation of the government's assurances, but must in the interests of fairness be read to forbid end-runs around them.” [12]

The appeals court vacated the sentence and remanded the case for re-sentencing by a different judge. [13]

---

^{[1] United States v. Mitchell, 136 F.3d 1192, 1193-94 (8th Cir.1998).
[2] United States v. Cachucha, WL 1219427 (10th Cir. 2007).
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] See United States v. Brye, 146 F.3d 1207, 1210 (10th Cir.1998).
[6] Id.
[7] United States v. Scott, 469 F.3d 1335, 1338 (10th Cir.2006).
[8] United States v. Grandinetti, 564 F.2d 723, 727 (5th Cir.1977).
[9] Cachucha, WL 1219427.
[10] Id.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.}