|
|
|
| Plea Bargains |
|
Jiminez v. State,
2006 OK CR 43 (Okl.Cr., October 3, 2006): Plea Bargains; Ineffective Assistance of Counsel: Jiminez was convicted by jury in Oklahoma County of several counts including Burglary in the Second Degree, Possession of Burglar's Implements, Possession of Paraphernalia, and Possession of False ID, all after former conviction of a felony. He was sentenced to 12 years on the main charge by the Hon. Patricia Parrish. On appeal, he alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey to him a plea offer from the State of five years on the main charge with everything else running CC. The plea offer was open for a two week period prior to trial. For some reason, trial counsel waited until the day of trial to convey the plea offer to the client, the client indicated that he wanted to accept the offer, but the prosecutor refused to accept a plea at that point because the State was ready for trial. HELD: trial counsel was ineffective for failing to convey the plea offer in a timely manner and he was also prejudiced because there was a reasonable probability that he would have accepted it. The Court affirmed the convictions but modified the sentence to five years which effectively gave Jiminez the benefit of the plea bargain.
|
|
|
United States v. Cachucha,
No. 06-2215 (10th Cir., April 26, 2007) (Published): Prosecutorial Misconduct; Breach Plea Agreement: Plea Bargains: Cachucha was driving while intoxicated on Indian land and struck another vehicle resulting in a death. He was indicted on a charge of involuntary manslaughter and entered a plea pursuant to a plea agreement. At the time of the crime, the guidelines range was 10-16 months. At the time of the plea, the range was 37-47 months. The District Court sentenced Cachucha to 30 months, finding that the range of 10-16 months was not a reasonable sentence. HELD: the sentence is REVERSED and remanded for re-sentencing before a different judge on the basis that the Government violated the plea agreement by essentially arguing against the punishment range it agreed was applicable to the case (10-16 months).
|
|
|
United States v. Cano-Verela,
No. 06-8020 (10th Cir., August 10, 2007) (Published): Plea Bargains: This is an instructive case where the District Court, during a pre-trial conference, informed Cano-Verela that he would potentially face a vastly longer sentence if he went to trail and was convicted than if he pleaded guilty. Cano-Verela had intended to request a change of counsel so that he could go to trial. Two weeks after the conference, he accepted the deal. HELD: The District Court violated Rule 11(c)(1)(C) by participating in plea negotiations; guilty plea and sentence vacated.
|
|
United States v. Cudjoe,
No. 07-6166 (10th Cir., July 29, 2008) (Published): Plea Bargains: Cudjoe entered a plea of guilty to Conspiracy to Possess w/Intent CDS and Carrying a Firearm in Relation to a Drug Trafficking Crime. The plea agreement contemplated that Cudjoe would ask for 360 months and the Government agreed to not object. After a hearing, Cudjoe was sentenced to 360 months on the Conspiracy and 60 months on the gun charge which must be served consecutively, for an effective sentence of 420 months. The Government, however, argued for enhancements and urged a sentence higher than 360 months. HELD: The Government did not live up to its part of the bargain. REVERSED and remanded for resentencing.
|
|
United States v. Villa-Vasquez,
No. 07-3160 (10th Cir., August 20, 2008) (Published): Plea Bargains: In this Illegal Re-Entry case, the plea agreement was "blatantly violated" by the Government and the case remanded for re-sentencing before a different judge. Good read because the panel shuts down the Government's attempts to weasel out of its agreement.
|
|
|
|
