Summary
The Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment after it accepted Damone Bell’s guilty plea to a lesser included, unindicted offense but rejected the parties’ Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement and imposed a 30-month sentence. The court held that the government’s consent to the plea could not be withdrawn after the plea was accepted, and that the plea agreement did not authorize reinstatement of the greater offense or overcome double-jeopardy concerns. The court also denied the government’s alternative petition for a writ of mandamus.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the government could withdraw its consent to Bell's guilty plea to a lesser included but unindicted offense after the district court rejected the Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.
- Whether paragraph 18 of the plea agreement authorized the government to reinstate or proceed on the greater charged offense after rejection of the plea agreement.
- Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause permitted the government to reindict or proceed against Bell on the greater offense after the court accepted his guilty plea and entered final judgment on the lesser offense.
- Whether the government was entitled to a writ of mandamus directing the district court to schedule trial on the greater offense.
Holdings
- When the government has consented to a defendant's guilty plea to a lesser included offense, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 does not authorize the government to withdraw that consent after the district court rejects the plea agreement.
- Paragraph 18 did not create a government right to withdraw its prior consent to the lesser included offense or automatically reinstate the greater offense when the district court rejected the plea agreement.
- After Bell pleaded guilty to the lesser included offense with the government's consent, the district court accepted the plea and entered final judgment, and Bell elected not to withdraw his pleas, the government could not reinstate or reindict him on the greater offense because doing so would implicate the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The government was not entitled to mandamus because its direct appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 provided an adequate alternative avenue of relief.
Key quotations
“Accordingly, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 vests the district court with final authority to approve or reject plea agreements, and following the rejection of a plea agreement, the defendant retains final authority over the status of the guilty plea.” (6)
“Rule 11 does not give the government the authority to withdraw its previously given consent for a defendant’s guilty plea to a lesser included offense.” (6)
“Because 28 U.S.C. § 1291 provides us jurisdiction to hear the direct appeal, the government cannot demonstrate a lack of adequate alternative avenues of relief.” (9)
Factual background
A grand jury indicted Bell for distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death, which carried a twenty-year mandatory minimum, and possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl. The government agreed that Bell could plead guilty to a lesser included but unindicted offense in Count 1 under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) agreement calling for a 168-month sentence. After accepting the pleas, the district court rejected the agreement because of a substantial discrepancy between the six-to-twelve-month guideline range and the agreed sentence, but Bell declined to withdraw his pleas and received a thirty-month sentence.
Procedural history
A grand jury indicted Bell for distribution of a controlled substance resulting in death and possession with intent to distribute heroin and fentanyl. Bell entered a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to the charged offenses, including a lesser included but unindicted offense in Count 1, in exchange for an agreed 168-month sentence. The district court accepted the guilty pleas but later rejected the plea agreement after reviewing the presentence report, advised Bell of his right to withdraw, and sentenced him to thirty months after Bell elected to persist in his pleas. The government objected, sought reconsideration, and then brought this appeal and mandamus petition.