Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
D and his lawyer entered into a written plea bargain where D promised to plead guilty to two armed bank robberies and six other violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2113(b). P promised in the agreement to suggest to the court that any sentence imposed 'not exceed 5 years imprisonment, thereby recommending that the term of imprisonment for the two counts to which the defendant pleads guilty in indictments should not exceed 25 years.' It was thus expressly contemplated that those two terms would run consecutively. For the other six violations, P promised to 'recommend that the sentences imposed be made to run concurrently with each other and to also run concurrently with any sentence imposed upon D's plea of guilty to indictments. Nothing was mentioned about the relationship between the proposed sentence here and a twelve-year federal sentence that D was already serving for a bank robbery in Georgia. The agreement specifically provided that 'This document contains the full and complete agreement between the parties, and no promises or representations have been made except as are incorporated herein.' D had stolen $37,844.61, but P had recovered only $239.00. Restitution was discussed during the plea hearing. P honored the agreement and made its presentation and plea to the court. P asked the court to run any sentences it imposed consecutively to a 12-year sentence that D was serving for in Georgia. The court sentenced D to a twenty-year term of imprisonment that would be followed by a five-year term of imprisonment. This time would be in addition to that served for the Georgia felony. For each of the other six robberies, the court ordered five-year sentences to be served concurrently. The court also ordered D to make restitution to each of the robbed banks. D appealed. D claims P breached the plea agreement by asking the district court to order restitution and consecutive sentences.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co