Court accepts plea agreement case (Oct. 1, 2008)

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide how the federal appeals courts should handle prosecutors’ violations of plea bargains when the violation was not challenged during the trial.

In July 2002, a grand jury on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas issued a two-count indictment against James Benjamin Puckett for armed robbery. After entering into a plea agreement, Puckett pleaded guilty to both counts of the indictment.

In September 2003, as part of the plea agreement, the government agreed that Puckett qualified for a reduction in his offense level because he had accepted responsibility for his crimes. In addition, the plea agreement also required the government to request a sentence at the low end of the sentencing guidelines range.

Two months after entering his guilty plea and while he was awaiting sentencing, Puckett was diagnosed with a benign tumor on the left side of his brain and underwent surgery to have it removed. Later, at the request of his lawyer, the district judge ordered both physical and neurological examinations to determine Puckett’s present mental capacity and his capacity at the time of the offense.

Two years after pleading guilty, Puckett filed a “claim of ineffective assistance of counsel” and argued that his lawyer failed to investigate his brain disease and failed to pursue a defense based on diminished capacity or mental illness. In November 2005, Puckett also filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea.

The judge rejected Puckett’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel and denied his motion to withdraw the plea, finding insufficient medical evidence that Puckett suffered from a bipolar disorder and no evidence that Puckett’s brain tumor or bipolar disorder rendered him incompetent. The judge also concluded that Puckett had made no showing that his lawyer’s performance was deficient or otherwise prejudicial to Puckett’s defense.

As a result of the delay in sentencing, the district court ordered the probation officer to update its original report, and in March 2006, the probation officer interviewed Puckett in his attorney’s presence. Puckett admitted that in February 2005, while he was in custody pending sentencing in this case, he had assisted another inmate to defraud the U.S. Postal Service and had received $300 from the scheme. The probation officer adjusted her original guidelines calculation to recommend that petitioner receive no reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility.

At sentencing, defense counsel objected on the ground that the new recommendation incorrectly denied petitioner credit for acceptance of responsibility. The prosecution acknowledged that it had changed its recommendation and the defense counsel argued that the court retained discretion in the case, but he did not assert that the government’s objection breached the plea agreement.

The district court judge observed that even if it retained discretion to award Puckett credit for acceptance of responsibility, it was “so rare [as] to be unknown around here” that such credit would be given when a defendant has committed a new crime. The court ruled that it would not award Puckett credit for acceptance of responsibility “under the circumstances here,” and Puckett was eventually sentenced to 262 months imprisonment for the bank robbery and a consecutive 84-month term on the gun count.

In October 2007, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court order.

On Oct. 1, 2008, the Supreme Court agreed to review the case.

Question presented: Whether forfeited claims that the government breached a plea agreement are subject to “plain error” review.