Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
Zippatic
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:57 pm

Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby Zippatic » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:02 pm

This should be a straight forward question, but for the life of me I cannot find any case law that would support my supposition. Is a plea agreement made in one state for an offense committed in that state binding upon other states (e.g., The state cannot use this conviction for any future strike/sentence enhancement). My thought is that it isn't. A plea agreement isn't binding upon another state not party to the original agreement. I've used terms like plea /s agreement /p jurisdiction OR ("out #of state") and nothing is relevant to my question. Suggestions?

User avatar
manofjustice
Posts: 1323
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 pm

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby manofjustice » Mon Sep 16, 2013 9:08 pm

No fucking clue. But my guess it that no one else has a clue either. The N-cSORNA litigation of late laid bare how courts don't know what to make of plea agreements. Petitioners argued that plea agreements were governed by the contract clause of the Constitution and it made everyone uncomfortable and perplexed. A plea agreement clearly is not a straightforward contract, but no one is sure what it is instead.

Zippatic
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 8:57 pm

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby Zippatic » Tue Sep 17, 2013 12:43 am

I'm going with Contract Theory. Plea bargains are basically contracts. Pucket v. U.S., 556 US 129, 137 (2009).

State A and defendant entered into an agreement only between themselves. This agreement did not involve State B and accordingly, is not binding. (or so goes my current train of thought)

BTW - What the heck is N-cSORNA?

NotMyRealName09
Posts: 1395
Joined: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:50 pm

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby NotMyRealName09 » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:16 am

The plea agreement won't be, but the judgment of conviction entered based on the plea will be res judicata. If DefA pleads guilty to CrimeA via plea deal with StateA that stipulates StateA will not use that conviction to enhance future sentences, StateB doesn't give a crap and can use the conviction to enhance future sentences.

Sometimes, the reason you can't find an answer to a research question is because there isn't one. StateB's prosecutors and courts don't give a crap about another state's plea deal, all they care about is the conviction.

Interesting full faith and credit issue though..........

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby dowu » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:30 am

I see most enhancements coming from convictions within the same state. But yeah, I've also seen other state convictions filed with the court for enhancements in my state. Never see or hear a clause about the conviction only being used for a specific state. But then again, I've never looked for it.

User avatar
kalvano
Posts: 11725
Joined: Mon Sep 07, 2009 2:24 am

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby kalvano » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:34 am

It should be binding in the sense that another state cannot set aside the deal or ignore it completely. Only the state with jurisdiction over the crime has the power prosecute, dismiss, or plea out the case. If the crime was committed in State A, then only State A has the power to dispose of that case. State B can't say "fuck you, State A, we think it should have been handled this way and are going to ignore the way you handled it."

But it also depends on what the use is. Is it to calculate a criminal history score, suspend a license, or is it for other court proceedings?


But, for reference:

Miller v. Com, 509 S.E.2d 532 (1999) - Pennsylvania case that said plea deals in one county are not binding on another county.

Ferrelli v. Com., 783 A.2d 891 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2001): (1) licensees' no contest pleas in West Virginia to driving under the influence of alcohol were convictions under the Driver's License Compact, and (2) Pennsylvania was not required to give full faith and credit to the order of a West Virginia court stating that the pleas were not convictions.


Rosin v. Monken, 599 F.3d 574 (7th Cir. 2010): Illinois resident filed § 1983 action against Illinois state police and supervisor of sex-offender registration, alleging that requiring resident to relocate and register as sex offender in Illinois for life violated Full Faith and Credit Clause by refusing to give effect to New York judgment accepting resident's plea agreement that had stricken sex-offender registration provision. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Samuel Der-Yeghiayan, J., 2008 WL 4976253, granted defendants' motion to dismiss. Resident appealed. The Court of Appeals, Cudahy, Circuit Judge, held that plea agreement did not prohibit resident from registering as sex offender in any state except New York.


Federal:
U.S. v. Gebbie, 294 F.3d 540, 549 (3d Cir. 2002) (plea agreement negotiated on behalf of United States binding on all U.S. Attorneys because each represents government as a whole), U.S. v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 302-03 (4th Cir. 1986) (plea agreement that provided defendant immunity binding in other federal jurisdictions), and U.S. v. Van Thournot, 100 F.3d 590, 594-95 (8th Cir. 1996) (plea agreement made by Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming to recommend concurrent terms binding on Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Iowa), with U.S. v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88, 120 (2d Cir. 1998) (per curiam) (plea agreement with promises by “the Government” binds U.S. Attorney's Office only for district in which plea entered unless agreement contemplates broader restrictions or there is evidence prosecutor tried to evade restrictions by transferring prosecution).
Plea agreements that are expressly limited to a single jurisdiction are not binding on attorneys in other jurisdictions who pursue independent prosecutions. See, e.g., U.S. v. Prewitt, 34 F.3d 436, 441 (7th Cir. 1994) (plea agreement limited to Northern District of Indiana did not preclude prosecution in other federal jurisdictions); U.S. v. Johnston, 199 F.3d 1015, 1020-21 (9th Cir. 1999) (plea agreement limited to Eastern District of Michigan did not preclude prosecution in other federal jurisdictions). But see, e.g., U.S. v. Randolph, 230 F.3d 243, 249-51 (6th Cir. 2000) (plea agreement barring further prosecution in Northern District of Texas prevented U.S. Attorney from Northern District of Texas from referring case for prosecution in Tennessee).

Guilty Pleas, 40 Geo. L.J. Ann. Rev. Crim. Proc. 424, 459 (2011)
Last edited by kalvano on Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:49 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dowu
Posts: 8334
Joined: Wed Mar 28, 2012 9:47 pm

Re: Plea Agreement -> Multijurisdictional?

Postby dowu » Tue Sep 17, 2013 10:41 am

Yeah exactly, probably not for prosecutorial purposes, but for enhancements definitely.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests