Summary
The Ninth Circuit dismissed Erika Marie Plancarte’s appeal after determining that the government did not implicitly breach the plea agreement by recommending a 90-day sentence while discussing her criminal history, recidivism, offense conduct, and an ambiguity in the presentence report. The court enforced the agreement’s appellate waiver and held that the government’s conduct complied with both the letter and spirit of the plea agreement. Judge Paez concurred, emphasizing that mitigating evidence may be relevant to the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government implicitly breached the plea agreement by discussing Plancarte's criminal history and prior sentences while recommending 90 days of imprisonment.
- Whether the government's description of the offense as worrying and its reference to the Guideline enhancement for transporting an unaccompanied minor breached the spirit of the plea agreement.
- Whether the government implicitly breached the plea agreement by failing to present or acknowledge mitigating evidence.
- Whether the appellate waiver in the plea agreement should be enforced.
Holdings
- The government did not implicitly breach the plea agreement by accurately referring to Plancarte's criminal history, prior custodial sentences, and the failure of prior sentences to deter her recidivist conduct while advocating for the agreed 90-day sentence.
- The government did not breach the spirit of the plea agreement by describing the offense conduct as worrying or by citing the Guideline provision concerning unaccompanied minors because the citation clarified an ambiguity in the presentence report and confirmed that the enhancement did not apply.
- On the facts of this case, the government's failure to present mitigating evidence did not constitute an implicit breach of the plea agreement.
- Because the government did not breach the plea agreement and neither exception to the appellate waiver applied, the court enforced the waiver and dismissed the appeal.
Key quotations
“That means the parties’ arguments “must be made in good faith and advance the objectives of the plea agreement.”” (136 F.4th at 980)
“The government may implicitly breach a plea agreement by making arguments to the district court that undermine the parties’ agreement.” (136 F.4th at 980)
“The government did not implicitly breach its plea agreement with Plancarte. Instead, the government stuck to the letter of the agreement, and it did not make statements in bad faith to undermine the parties’ bargain.” (136 F.4th at 984)
Factual background
In August 2023, Plancarte transported four aliens through the San Ysidro Port of Entry using false documentation, while one of the transported persons presented a passport issued to someone else. Plancarte admitted to smuggling the aliens after Border Patrol questioning. Her plea agreement required the government to recommend a sentence of 90 days of imprisonment, and the government made that recommendation while also discussing her criminal history, recidivism, offense conduct, and an ambiguity in the presentence report.
Procedural history
The government charged Plancarte in an eight-count information. Under the plea agreement, she pleaded guilty to Count 1 and the remaining counts were dismissed; the government agreed to recommend 90 days of imprisonment. At sentencing, the district court rejected Plancarte's arguments that the government's discussion of her criminal history, reference to the Sentencing Guidelines provision concerning unaccompanied minors, and failure to present mitigating evidence breached the agreement. The district court sentenced her to 120 days of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal.