Untimely Guilty Plea Not Enough to Prevent Responsiblity Credit

An untimely guilty plea in a plea deal is not sufficient for denying the two-level sentencing deduction for acknowledging responsibility

United States v. Hollis, 2016, BL 166203, 6th Cir., No. 15-5246, 5/25/16.

    The Sixth Circuit overruled a federal district court's ruling in denying to take into account a guilty plea in a plea deal after the defendant failed to meet the deadlines set by the judge, who found that such tardiness caused a "waste of government resources." The circuit court responded that under U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1(a), that "timeliness of a defendants plea" can only be considered "to the extend that timeliness reflects the extent of the defendant's sincerity in accepting responsibility."

   The court notes that the waste of government resources lies in subsection (b) in the same section, which credits the defendant's offense level one step if the plea saves government resources. While overturning the district court's ruling, the circuit court did note that timeliness is not completely irrelevant. The court in their conclusion found that a defendant entering a plea deal at the eleventh hour does not necessarily indicate an acceptance of responsibility, but rather apprehension of the government's case against him or her. "Such a situation might occur when the plea comes on the eve of or during a trial," the court elaborates.

   The takeaway is that the timeliness of a plea is only considered to the extent that it shows insincerity, not inconvenience or a waste of government resources.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/United_States_v_Hollis_No_155246_2016_BL_166203_6th_Cir_May_25_20.

Judge Must Accept Guilt Plea Without Necessary Details

Judge acted outside of his authority to reject a guilty plea just because he wanted details about the crime that went beyond the elements necessary for a guilty plea.

United States v. Nickel, 2016 BL 85312, 9th Cir., No. 14-30204, 3/21/16

     The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that once a defendant admits that the charged elements of the crime are true, the judge can only reject the plea if the defendant is disputing, or does not understand, the charges.

     The court confirmed that "[t]here is no requirement in Rule 11(b) that the defendant himself give an in-depth account of his crime or confirm that everything in the government's offer of proof is true."

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/United_States_v_Nickle_No_1430204_2016_BL_85312_9th_Cir_Mar_21_20?1462809942

Pleas Not Subject To Unilateral Changes By Judge

When a trial judge wants to change a recommended sentence in a plea bargain, the state must be allowed to withdraw consent to that plea bargain.

 

State v. Kelly, 2016 BL 49123, Ga., No. S15G1197, 2/22/16

     The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that a judge cannot unilaterally change a portion of a negotiated plea and then force the state to accept the change. The court stated that "the trial court's authority to accept a plea agreement to a lesser charge flows from the State's consent to that agreement."

     The court indicated that if this were allowed, a court's ability to change plea deals would "not only weaken the inherent authority of the executive branch to control how individuals should be charged, but it would also chill the State's willingness to enter into such pleas."

     If courts want to reject sentence recommendations as part of a plea agreement to a lesser charge, they must give the state an opportunity to withdraw its consent to the plea and demand a trial.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/THE_STATE_v_KELLEY_No_S15G1197_2016_BL_49123_Ga_Feb_22_2016_Court?1457453963