The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Forsyth Street in Atlanta, Georgia

Last week, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which covers federal appeals in Florida, Alabama, and Georgia, ruled in our client’s favor and overturned his 6-year prison sentence. The Court found that the federal prosecutors had breached the plea agreement they signed when our client agreed to plead guilty. 

The Court’s order vacating our client’s sentence adopted most of the arguments we made in our briefs, in which we argued that the prosecution breached the plea agreement by introducing allegations of uncharged offenses at our client’s sentencing even though the allegations were contradicted by facts that the government had stipulated to in the agreement. Now, our client will be re-sentenced by a new judge, and the prosecutors will have to honor their word this time.

It can be difficult to prove that a prosecutor has breached a plea agreement, as many federal judges are deferential to prosecutors and do not want to accuse them of breaking a promise. But that’s exactly what happened in this case.

Our client hired us after he was indicted for wire fraud and violating the conditions of the term of supervised release that he was serving for a prior federal case. By being aggressive in pursuing our discovery rights and preparing for trial, we were able to secure a favorable plea offer from the government. Specifically, our client agreed to plead guilty based on the prosecutor’s promises to agree to certain facts regarding our client’s offense and take certain positions regarding our client’s recommended sentence under the Guidelines. 

Under the terms of this agreement, and memorialized in writing in an email from the prosecutor, our agreement bound the government to recommend a sentence of time served and a minimal financial penalty. These terms were put in writing in the “plea agreement” that was filed by the parties when our client entered his guilty plea.

After our client pleaded guilty, but before the sentencing hearing, the assigned prosecutor’s supervisor took over the case and immediately broke the government’s promises. Despite being aware of the plea agreement between the parties, the new prosecutor fed the probation officer misleading information that led to a presentence investigation report recommending a much higher sentence for our client than the government had promised to recommend in the plea agreement.

We filed a motion to enforce the plea agreement and litigated the motion aggressively, including cross-examining the probation officer and the government agent who fed the officer misleading information. Unfortunately, the judge misinterpreted the case law governing how courts must interpret plea agreements in criminal cases, as well as the terms of the plea agreement itself. Based on the distorted view of the case that the prosecution presented, and which the judge accepted, our client’s time served plea offer turned into a six-year prison sentence.

While our client can’t get that time back, he has been proven right and can now fight for vindication, with the Court of Appeals finding that the government broke its promise and that our client is entitled to be resentenced in front of a different judge. The proper standard for interpreting a plea agreement, which is essentially a contract between the prosecution and a defendant, requires that a court consider the defendant’s reasonable understanding of the agreement, rather than apply a “hyper-technical” or rigid reading of the agreement. 

Here, based on the plain language of the agreement and our client’s reasonable expectations, the Court found that there was a clear breach when the government alleged facts that sentencing that were inconsistent with the facts it stipulated to in the plea agreement.

Click here to read the Court’s opinion. 

Contact our firm if you or a loved one need an experienced federal appellate attorney to handle an appeal from a criminal conviction or sentence.