US v. Farias-Contreras

“[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York , 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).

Defendant entered into a plea agreement to plead guilty to one count of conspiracy to distribute illegal narcotics in exchange for, inter alia, an agreement by the Government “not to recommend a sentence in excess of the low-end of the guideline range.” The Government calculated the guideline range as 151 – 188 months. Defendant appealed his 188-month sentence, arguing that the Government implicitly breached the plea agreement with arguments it made in both its sentencing memo and during the sentencing hearing. “[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.” Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971). The Court reasoned that by not expressly stating the Government’s support of the 151-month sentence during the hearing, and introducing irrelevant facts during the trial court’s sentencing proceedings, the Government was “winking at the district court” to request a different outcome. The Court held that in so doing the Government did not strictly comply with its end of the bargain, and thus implicitly breached the plea agreement because Defendant did not receive the benefit of the agreement. The Court also held there was a reasonable probability the trial court relied on this information in imposing the higher sentence. SENTENCE VACATED; REMANDED.