PLEA AGREEMENT

Hughes v. United States

Issues

Is a defendant who pleads guilty under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) eligible for sentence reduction when the pertinent Sentencing Guideline range is later modified by an amendment?

In this case, the Supreme Court will determine whether Erik Hughes is eligible for a sentence reduction even though he pled guilty with a binding sentence agreement. Hughes pled guilty to drug and firearm charges and received a 180-month sentence, which, at the time, was just below the range recommended by the Sentencing Guidelines of between 188 and 235 months. Since his sentencing, the Sentencing Commission amended the Guidelines, reducing the sentencing range for Hughes’s crime to between 151 and 188 months. Hughes sought to modify his sentence under 15 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2), which requires a sentence to be based on the Guidelines. The Eleventh Circuit denied modification based on Freeman v. United States, in which the Supreme Court held that sentences from plea deals are not based on the Guidelines, but Hughes contends that the circuit court incorrectly applied the 4-1-4 decision. Hughes also argues that he is eligible for a modification because his sentence is based on the Guidelines under a tort theory of proximate cause. The United States responds that the connection between the Guidelines, the plea agreement, and the sentencing is too tenuous. At stake are an important question of what portions of a plurality decision should bind lower courts, potential inequities regarding parties who may and may not have their sentences reduced, and a shift in power in plea negotiations.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, as a four-justice plurality in Freeman v. United States concluded, a defendant who enters into a Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is generally eligible for a sentence reduction if there is a later, retroactive amendment to the relevant Sentencing Guidelines range.

In 2013, the federal government charged Erik Hughes with four counts of drug and firearm offenses. United States v. Hughes, 849 F.3d 1008, 1010 (2017). Subsequently, Hughes and the government reached a plea agreement whereby Hughes plead guilty to two counts, conspiracy with intent to distribute and possession of a firearm as a felon, in exchange for a sentence of 180 months in prison. Id.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Hunter v. United States

Issues

Are claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or claims that a sentence is above the statutory maximum the only two permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver? Does an appeal waiver still apply if the sentencing judge tells the defendant that they can appeal their sentence and the government does not object?

In this case, the Court will determine whether petitioner Hunter, a criminal defendant, may appeal his sentence, despite agreeing to waive his right to appeal when he entered a plea agreement with the United States government. The lower court determined that Hunter’s waiver prevented his appeal, even though he argues his sentence is unconstitutional. Hunter asserts that because plea agreements are like contracts, the Court should recognize that doctrines which make a contract invalid can also make a plea agreement’s appeal waiver invalid. Additionally, Hunter separately claims that the District Court’s statement during sentencing, which informed him that he retained the right to appeal, should invalidate his appeal waiver because the government did not object. The government argues that applying contract defenses to appeal waivers is not supported by the law, and that none of Hunter’s stated contract doctrines apply in this case. The government also maintains that there is no legal basis for the District Court’s statement to modify the appeal waiver, and that the District Court’s statement pertained to other appealable claims that Hunter did not raise. The outcome of this case will have significant implications for the rights of criminal defendants, their leverage during plea negotiations, and the availability of appeals.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the only permissible exceptions to a general appeal waiver are for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel or that the sentence exceeds the statutory maximum; and (2) whether an appeal waiver applies when the sentencing judge advises the defendant that he has a right to appeal and the government does not object.

The Petitioner, Munson P.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to PLEA AGREEMENT