If the government breaches the plea agreement, it violates the defendant’s right to due process and renders the plea involuntary.  The issue of breach of plea bargain is reviewed de novo.[1] 

 

            Due process requires the government to honor its agreements:

 

[W]hen a plea rests in any significant degree on a promise or agreement of the prosecutor, so that it can be said to be part of the inducement or consideration, such promise must be fulfilled.[2]

 

            “Plea bargains are ‘contractual in nature and must be measured by contract law standards.’”[3]  As a result, when the agreement could be said to be ambiguous, it must be construed against the drafter -- the government.[4]  The government is to be held to the literal terms of the agreement, and must bear responsibility for any lack of clarity.[5]  Construing ambiguities in favor of the defendant makes sense in light of the parties’ respective bargaining power and expertise.[6]

 

            A negotiated guilty plea is a “bargained-for quid pro quo,” so that either party will be in breach if they fail to live up to their obligations under the agreement.[7]  “When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.”[8]  Where a defendant has breached a plea agreement, courts have found the government to be free from its obligations.[9]  The government may move to vacate a plea agreement upon the defendant’s breach.[10]

 

            The prosecution’s failure to comply with the essence of the plea bargain renders the defendant’s plea involuntary, and undermines the constitutional validity of the conviction.[11]  Under these circumstances, the conviction should be reversed, and the defendant should be allowed to enter a new plea.  The harmless error rule does not apply to the law of contractual plea agreements.  Where the government is in breach, there are several available remedies, including allowing the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea or ordering “specific performance” by the government.[12]

 

            When the prosecution offers a defendant a plea bargain, and the defendant timely accepts, the prosecution may not withdraw its offer absent exceptional circumstances.[13]

 

            When the prosecution agreed to a Judicial Recommendation Aagainst Deportation, its agreement does not constitute an express or implied promise that the conviction will not render the noncitizen deportable.  The fact that the federal immigration laws changed retroactively to make a 1987 manslaughter conviction deportable as an aggravated felony was not sufficient to show that the original 1987 plea agreement had been violated.[14]

[1] United States v. Myers, 32 F.3d 411, 413 (9th Cir. 1994) (reversal for prosecution breach of plea agreement by failure to recommend a low-end sentence).

[2] Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971).

[3] United States v. Packwood, 848 F.2d 1009, 1011 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting United States v. Sutton, 794 F.2d 1415, 1423 (9th Cir. 1986)).

[4] United States v. De la Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1338 (9th Cir. 1993).

[5] United States v. Anderson, 970 F.2d 602, 607 (1992), amended, 990 F.2d 1163 (9th Cir. 1993)(citing United States v. Read, 778 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 835 (1986); United States v. Herrera, 928 F.2d at 772; United States v. Giorgi, 840 F.2d 1022, 1026 (1st Cir. 1988)).

[6] United States v. De La Fuente, 8 F.3d 1333, 1338 (9th Cir. 1993).

[7] United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 1988).

[8] “When a guilty plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.”  People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1024.

[9] See, e.g., id. (citing United States v. Verrusio, 803 F.2d 885, 887-89 (7th Cir. 1986); United States v. Reardon, 787 F.2d 512, 516 (10th Cir. 1986)).

[10] People v. Vargas (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 506.

[11] See United States v. Corsentino, 685 F.2d 48, 51 (2d Cir. 1982); cf. United States v. Read, 778 F.2d 1437, 1441 (9th Cir. 1985); see also Mabry v. Johnson 467 U.S. 504 (1984).

[12] United States v. Partida-Parra, 859 F.2d 629, 633 (9th Cir. 1988)(citing United States v. Herrera, 640 F.2d 958, 960 (9th Cir. 1981)); see generally Fed. R. Crim. P. 32(e) (governing plea withdrawals); see United States v. Anderson, supra, 970 F.2d at 608; People v. Mancheno (1982) 32 Cal.3d 855.

[13] People v. Williams (1988) 45 Cal.3d 1268.

[14] People v. Paredes, 72 Cal.Rptr.3d 867 (2008).

Lower Courts of Ninth Circuit

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " BREACH OF PLEA BARGAIN
People v. Alexander, ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 2015 WL 227974 (2d Dist. Jan. 16, 2015) (where defendant violated the plea agreement, the court properly sentenced him on his plea in accord with the statutory punishment, rather than in accord with the reduced sentence contemplated by the plea agreement; a defendant gets the benefit of a plea bargain once, and once spent, it is gone forever). Cal Crim Def 20.38

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " BREACH OF PLEA BARGAIN " PROSECUTION PETITION FOR MANDATE GRANTED WHERE COURT BREACHED PLEA BARGAIN TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PROSECUTION
People v. Superior Court (Sanchez), 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 115 (3d Dist. Jan. 29, 2014) (granting prosecution petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's order reforming a plea bargain detrimentally to the People by reducing the penalty to the term of imprisonment authorized by law for the crime, where the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by reforming the negotiated plea to conform with the applicable law because the reformation denied the People the benefit of their bargain). Note: In this case the defendant agreed to a plea bargain for a sentence of 25 years to life without possibility of parole on one count of attempted murder. The judge found that the statutory punishment for this offense is a term of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole, which set the minimum term at only seven years. The trial judge accepted the plea though even though it benefitted the defendant and was detrimental to the People. The People filed a writ and the Court of Appeals (on instructions from the Supreme Court) reversed and ordered the plea agreement rescinded. If the defendant can establish that a non-deportable plea bargain was entered into, and that was the purpose of a material term of the agreement, but it is later discovered to be incorrect as a matter of law in that both sides were mistaken, then the agreement can be rescinded. Thanks to Michael Mehr.

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " BREACH OF PLEA BARGAIN " PROSECUTION PETITION FOR MANDATE GRANTED WHERE COURT BREACHED PLEA BARGAIN TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PROSECUTION
People v. Superior Court (Sanchez), 223 Cal.App.4th 567, 167 Cal.Rptr.3d 115 (3d Dist. Jan. 29, 2014) (granting prosecution petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court's order reforming a plea bargain detrimentally to the People by reducing the penalty to the term of imprisonment authorized by law for the crime, where the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by reforming the negotiated plea to conform with the applicable law because the reformation denied the People the benefit of their bargain). Note: In this case the defendant agreed to a plea bargain for a sentence of 25 years to life without possibility of parole on one count of attempted murder. The judge found that the statutory punishment for this offense is a term of 25 years to life with the possibility of parole, which set the minimum term at only seven years. The trial judge accepted the plea though even though it benefitted the defendant and was detrimental to the People. The People filed a writ and the Court of Appeals (on instructions from the Supreme Court) reversed and ordered the plea agreement rescinded. If the defendant can establish that a non-deportable plea bargain was entered into, and that was the purpose of a material term of the agreement, but it is later discovered to be incorrect as a matter of law in that both sides were mistaken, then the agreement can be rescinded. Thanks to Michael Mehr.

Other

CAL POST CON " GROUNDS " BREACH OF PLEA AGREEMENT
People v. Nocelotl, 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 706 (6th Dist. Nov. 28, 2012) (Because a negotiated plea agreement is a form of contract, it is interpreted according to general contract principles. [Citation.] (People v. Segura (2008) 44 Cal.4th 921, 930, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 715, 188 P3d 649.) The fundamental goal of contractual interpretation is to give effect to the mutual intention of the parties. [Citation.] If contractual language is clear and explicit, it governs. [Citation.] ( People v. Shelton (2006) 37 Cal.4th 759, 767, 37 Cal.Rptr.3d 354, 125 P.3d 290.)).