Puckett v. United States
556 U. S. ____ (2009) (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a defendant fails to object to the government's breach of a plea agreement in the trial court, the claim is forfeited and is subject to the plain-error standard of review under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) on appeal.
Facts:
- James Puckett was indicted for armed bank robbery and a related firearm charge.
- Puckett entered into a plea agreement with the Government, agreeing to plead guilty and cooperate.
- In exchange, the Government agreed to state that Puckett had accepted responsibility, qualifying him for a three-level sentence reduction, and to request a sentence at the low end of the applicable guideline range.
- Puckett pleaded guilty as agreed.
- While awaiting sentencing, a period which lasted nearly three years, Puckett assisted another individual in a mail fraud scheme.
- At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor, citing Puckett's new criminal conduct, argued against the three-level reduction for acceptance of responsibility, contrary to the plea agreement.
- Puckett's defense counsel did not object that the prosecutor's argument constituted a breach of the plea agreement.
Procedural Posture:
- James Puckett was indicted by a grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
- Puckett pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement, and the District Court accepted his plea.
- At sentencing, the District Court denied the sentence reduction contemplated in the plea agreement and sentenced Puckett to 346 months imprisonment.
- Puckett, as appellant, appealed his sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where the Government, as appellee, conceded it had breached the plea agreement.
- The Fifth Circuit held that Puckett had forfeited his claim by failing to object in the district court and, applying plain-error review, affirmed the sentence because Puckett could not show the error affected his substantial rights.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the applicable standard of review for such forfeited claims.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the plain-error standard of review set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) apply to a defendant's forfeited claim that the Government has violated the terms of a plea agreement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Scalia
Yes. A forfeited claim that the Government has breached a plea agreement is subject to plain-error review under Rule 52(b). The rule requiring a contemporaneous objection to preserve a claim for appeal is a fundamental procedural principle that applies to all errors, including the Government's breach of a plea agreement. A breach does not retroactively render a guilty plea involuntary or unknowing; plea bargains are akin to contracts, and a breach entitles the non-breaching party to a remedy, not an automatic voiding of the agreement. The Government's breach is not a 'structural' error that automatically satisfies the prejudice prong of the plain-error test, as it does not affect the entire adjudicatory framework and is amenable to harmless-error analysis. Therefore, a defendant who fails to object must satisfy all four prongs of the plain-error test, including showing that the error affected his substantial rights, typically by affecting the outcome of the proceedings.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. While plain-error is the proper test, the majority misidentifies the substantial right affected by the breach. The relevant effect on substantial rights is not merely the length of the sentence, but the conviction itself, which was secured based on a promise the Government failed to honor. A criminal conviction obtained through a plea induced by a government promise that is later broken is fundamentally unfair, and this inherent unfairness satisfies the third prong of the plain-error test. Allowing a conviction to stand under these circumstances seriously affects the fairness and public reputation of the judicial system, thus also satisfying the fourth prong. The judiciary should enforce the Government's promises to maintain the integrity of the plea-bargaining system.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the universality of the plain-error standard for nearly all forfeited claims in federal criminal cases, refusing to create a special exception for breaches of plea agreements. It clarifies that such a breach is not a 'structural error' that would bypass the need to show prejudice. The ruling places a significant burden on defense attorneys to be vigilant and raise contemporaneous objections to any perceived breach at sentencing. Failure to do so makes it exceedingly difficult for a defendant to obtain relief on appeal, as they must then demonstrate that the breach likely affected their ultimate sentence, a difficult showing to make.
Unlock the full brief for Puckett v. United States