United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER REJECTING PLEA AGREEMENT
WILLIAM J. MARTINEZ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court on Defendant's Plea Agreement.
(ECF No. 61.) Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11(b), the Court accepted Defendant's guilty plea to
Count 6 of the Superseding Indictment. (ECF No. 4.) However,
plea agreements are governed separately under Rule
11(c). See United States v. Hyde, 520 U.S. 670, 674
(1997) (under Rule 11, “[g]uilty pleas can be accepted
while plea agreements are deferred, and the acceptance of the
two can be separated in time”). During the
change-of-plea hearing, the Court announced that it was
deferring the decision whether to accept the Plea Agreement
until it could review the Presentence Investigation Report
(“PSIR”).[1] The Court further stated that it would
announce its decision by way of separate order. This is that
order. And, for the reasons explained below, the Court
rejects the Plea Agreement.
I.
BACKGROUND
The
Superseding Indictment, which is dated October 10, 2018,
charges Defendant, along with co-defendant Lawrence Lowe,
with one count of Hobbs Act robbery, see 18 U.S.C.
§ 1951(a) (“Count 6”). (ECF No. 4 at
6-7.)[2] Defendant was arrested, arraigned
(pleading not guilty), and released on bond on October 15,
2018. (ECF Nos. 7, 9, 13-14.)
On June
10, 2019, Defendant filed a Notice of Disposition and
requested a change-of-plea hearing. (ECF No. 51.) The Court
set a change-of-plea hearing for July 15, 2019. (ECF No. 52.)
The Court, however, received and reviewed the Plea Agreement
ahead of that hearing. (See id.) The major points of
the Plea Agreement are:
• Defendant pleads guilty to Count 6. (ECF No. 61 at 1.)
• The Government agrees that a three-point reduction in
offense level for acceptance of responsibility is
appropriate. (Id.)
• “[T]he parties agree to jointly recommend [to
the Court] no confinement” (id. at 2), or in
other words, to recommend a sentence of probation.
The
Plea Agreement's preliminary sentencing calculation
estimated an offense level of 17 (inclusive of the
three-point reduction) and a criminal history category of I,
for an advisory sentencing range of 24-30 months.
(Id. at 14.) The Plea Agreement also stated
“the parties['] understand[ing] that the Court is
free, upon consideration and proper application of all 18
U.S.C. § 3553 factors, to impose” a sentence
below, within, or above the advisory guideline range (up to
the statutory maximum). (Id. at 16.) The
change-of-plea hearing took place on July 15, 2019, as
scheduled. (ECF No. 60.) As already noted, the Court accepted
Defendant's plea but advised the parties that it reserved
ruling on whether it would accept the Plea Agreement.
II.
LEGAL STANDARD
The
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure contemplate three types
of bargains the Government will offer:
[T]he plea agreement may specify that an attorney for the
government will:
(A) not bring, or will move to dismiss, other charges;
(B) recommend, or agree not to oppose the defendant's
request, that a particular sentence or sentencing range is
appropriate or that a particular provision of the Sentencing
Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or
does not apply (such a recommendation or request does not
bind the court); or (C) agree that a specific sentence or
sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case,
or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines,
or policy statement, or ...