United States v. Robert Mark Fentress
1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 25908, 792 F.2d 461 (1986)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a written plea agreement contains a merger clause making it a fully integrated contract, the prosecution does not breach the agreement by making sentencing recommendations on matters not explicitly covered, as long as it fulfills all its express promises.
Facts:
- Robert Mark Fentress committed a series of bank robberies, stealing approximately $37,844.
- At the time of these offenses, Fentress was already serving a twelve-year federal sentence for a separate bank robbery in Georgia.
- Fentress and his lawyer entered into a written plea bargain with an Assistant United States Attorney to resolve the new robbery charges.
- The agreement specified the prison sentences the government would recommend for certain counts and stated those terms would run concurrently with each other, but consecutively to one another for a total of 25 years.
- The agreement was silent on the topics of restitution and whether the new sentences would run consecutively to Fentress's pre-existing Georgia sentence.
- The agreement contained a clause stating, 'This document contains the full and complete agreement between the parties, and no promises or representations have been made except as are incorporated herein.'
Procedural Posture:
- Fentress was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina with multiple counts of bank robbery.
- Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Fentress pleaded guilty in the district court.
- At the sentencing hearing, the prosecutor recommended that the court order Fentress to pay restitution and that the new sentence run consecutively to a prior sentence Fentress was serving.
- The district court sentenced Fentress to a 25-year prison term, ordered it to run consecutively to his prior sentence, and ordered him to make restitution to the victims.
- Fentress appealed the judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, arguing the prosecutor breached the plea agreement.
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 a prosecutor breach a written, fully integrated plea agreement by making sentencing recommendations on matters not addressed in the agreement, such as restitution and the consecutive nature of a sentence relative to a pre-existing one?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkinson, Circuit Judge
No. A prosecutor does not breach a plea agreement by making recommendations on topics not covered in the written document when that document is a complete and exclusive statement of the terms. Applying fundamental contract principles, the court found the plea bargain was a fully integrated agreement, meaning its terms were final and exclusive. The government fulfilled all of its explicit promises regarding the length and relationship of the new sentences. Because the agreement made no guarantees regarding restitution or its relationship to Fentress's prior Georgia sentence, the prosecutor was free to make recommendations on those issues. The government must be held to the promises it made, but it will not be bound to promises it did not make, as to do otherwise would strip the bargaining process of its meaning.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of strict contract law principles to the interpretation of plea agreements. It establishes that silence in a plea bargain on a particular sentencing issue does not create an implied promise by the government to remain silent on that issue. The ruling places the burden on defendants to negotiate and explicitly include any and all terms they wish to bind the prosecution to, especially in agreements with merger clauses. This precedent gives prosecutors significant latitude at sentencing to argue for any lawful penalty not expressly bargained away in the written plea instrument.
