US v. Dunlap: The Dunlaps, mother Vera and daughter Trecika, pleaded guilty to witness tampering after offering a bribe to a juror sitting on a drug case against Trecika’s brother (the juror called the FBI). The Government entered in a binding plea under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) for each with a 12-month-and-1-day sentence. At the plea hearings the district court never explicitly accepted or rejected the plea agreements, although a docket entry stated “Plea Agreement Accepted.” When the Dunlaps appeared for (separate) sentencings, the district court expressed concern about the agreed-to sentences (which the Government then decided had concerns, too) given the nature of the offenses. Ultimately, the court imposed sentences of 36 months in prison.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit vacated both sentences. The Dunlaps argued that the record showed that the district court had constructively accepted their plea agreements, based largely on the docket entry notation, if it hadn’t done so explicitly. The Government argued there was no acceptance and the imposition of 36-month sentences was evidence they were rejected. The court concluded that the record was ambiguous as to whether the district court had actually accepted the plea agreements. In such situations, the court held that the benefit of the doubt goes to the defendant and the agreements are treated as accepted. As a result, the sentences were vacated and the cases remanded for the original agreed-upon sentences to be imposed.
Congrats to the Defender office in South Carolina on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment