Recent SCOTUS Decision Does Not Retroactively Apply to Juvenile Plea Bargain

A plea bargain entered by a defendant to avoid the death penalty as a juvenile is not retroactively affected by a Supreme Court decision that found juvenile death sentences to be unconstitutional

Dingle v. Stevenson, 2016 BL 354573, 4th Cir., No. 15-6832, 10/25/16.

The Fourth Circuit did not expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005) to retroactively apply to defendants who entered into plea deals to avoid the death penalty as juveniles. In the original case, the defendant avoided a possible death penalty or life sentence without parole by entering into a plea deal while he was still seventeen. The defendant argued that his plea was involuntary because he was threatened with what is now considered an unconstitutionally cruel and unusual punishment. The court, however, found that his guilty plea and subsequent sentence were entirely unrelated to the Supreme Court’s decision. The court stated that “[A]lthough Roper, in hindsight, altered the calculus underlying Dingle's decision to accept a plea agreement, it does not undermine the voluntariness of his plea.”  The Supreme Court’s decision only applies if the defendant is actually sentenced to death or life without parole.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Dingle_v_Stevenson_No_156832_2016_BL_354573_4th_Cir_Oct_25_2016_C.

Equal Justice Protection Threatened by Bail Policies

A circuit court has held that keeping low-risk defendants in jail that are unable to pay bail until trial “has become a threat to equal justice under the law”

Curry v. Yachera, 2016 BL 286194, 3d Cir., No. 15-1692, 9/1/16.

   The Third Circuit held that a no contest plea given by a defendant held in jail bars him from seeking a claim for malicious prosecution. The dismissal, however, noted that holding low-risk defenders in jail until their court date threatened equal justice. The defendant was arrested after falsely returning $130 of items to Wal-Mart, later being held in jail for two months because he could not make the $20,000 bail that was set. The defendant then made his no contest plea, which released him from jail but only after losing his job and missing the birth of his first child.

   The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal with a modification, but it went further and espoused hope that bail reform would be forthcoming. The court stated, “It seems anomalous that in our system of justice, the access to wealth is what often determines whether a defendant is freed or must stay in jail…Further, those unable to pay who remain in jail may not have the ‘luxury' of awaiting a trial on the merits of their charges; they are often forced to accept a plea deal to leave the jail environment and be freed.”


http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Curry_v_Yachera_No_151692_2016_BL_286194_3d_Cir_Sept_01_2016_Cour.

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.