United States v. Mercedes Amparo

USCA1 Opinion









November 23, 1992
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
_____________________

No. 92-1483
No. 92-1483

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellee,
Appellee,

v.
v.

JOSE MERCEDES-AMPARO,
JOSE MERCEDES-AMPARO,

Defendant, Appellant.
Defendant, Appellant.

____________________
____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
[Hon. Hector M. Laffitte, U.S. District Judge]
___________________

____________________
____________________

Before
Before

Breyer, Chief Judge,
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________

Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge,
____________________

and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
and Cyr, Circuit Judge.
_____________

____________________
____________________


Luz M. R os Rosario for appellant.
Luz M. R os Rosario for appellant.
___________________
Esther Castro Schmidt, Assistant United States Attorney, with
Esther Castro Schmidt, Assistant United States Attorney, with
_______________________
whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, and Jos A. Quiles
whom Daniel F. Lopez-Romo, United States Attorney, and Jos A. Quiles
____________________ ______________
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief for appellee.
Espinosa, Senior Litigation Counsel, were on brief for appellee.
________


____________________
____________________


____________________
____________________




















CYR, Circuit Judge. Appellant Jose Mercedes Amparo
CYR, Circuit Judge.
_____________

pled guilty to attempting to bring illegal aliens into the United

States in violation of 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A). He claims that

the twenty-four month prison term imposed by the district court

was disproportionately severe and premised on an improper upward

departure. We remand for resentencing due to the government's

breach of its plea agreement obligation to recommend a sentence

within the applicable guideline sentencing range ("GSR").



I
I

BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
__________


On September 27, 1991, the United States Border Patrol

intercepted a 38-foot yawl carrying ninety-five illegal aliens

from the Dominican Republic to Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, which is

not a designated port of entry into the United States. Border

Patrol agents found neither food nor water aboard the vessel, nor

did they find life jackets, safety or emergency equipment,

sanitary facilities, or a radio for communication. Appellant was

identified as a captain of the vessel and arrested. The co-

captain was arrested as well, and both men were indicted under 8

U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A).

Appellant entered into a plea agreement whereby he

would plead guilty to one count, in return for the government's

recommendation of a sentence within the applicable GSR and

dismissal of the two remaining counts. At sentencing, the

district court assigned a base offense level of nine for the
















offense of conviction under 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A), see U.S.-
___

S.G. 2L1.1(a)(2), which was reduced by two levels for accep-

tance of responsibility, then offset by a two level increase

because appellant, as a captain of the vessel, provided a special

skill to facilitate the commission of the offense, see U.S.S.G.
___

3B1.3. The adjusted offense level of nine, combined with a

category I criminal history, yielded a 4-to-10 month GSR. The

court decided to depart upward to offense level fifteen, which

resulted in an 18-to-24 month GSR, then sentenced appellant to a

twenty-four month prison term.

At oral argument on appeal, appellant asserted for the

first time that the government had breached an express provision

in the plea agreement by not recommending a sentence within the

4-to-10 month GSR. Government counsel conceded that no such

recommendation had been made. Moreover, we note, sua sponte,
___ ______

that the presentence report ("PSR") misstates the pertinent

provision in the plea agreement.1








____________________

1Although the plea agreement plainly states that "the
parties have agreed to recommend that the sentence to be imposed
be within the guideline range," the PSR states: "On December 12,
1991, the defendant pled guilty to count one pursuant to the plea
agreement which proposes that in exchange for the defendant's
plea of guilt [sic] the government will not make a recommendation
___ ____ _ ______________
as to sentencing, but will move the Court for dismissal of the
__ __ __________
remaining counts." (Emphasis added.) Elsewhere, the PSR states:
"Under the plea agreement, the defendant has pled guilty to count
one in exchange for the dismissal of count[s] two and three."

3














II
II

DISCUSSION
DISCUSSION
__________


"Plea bargaining is a fundamental part of our criminal

justice system . . .," Correale v. United States, 479 F.2d 944,
________ _____________

947 (1st Cir. 1973), but though it promotes efficiency and

expedition in the administration of criminal proceedings, its

benefits "flow . . . from the defendant's waiver of almost all

the constitutional rights we deem fundamental. There must

accordingly be safeguards to insure that the waiver is knowledge-

able . . . and voluntary . . . ." Id. (citing Boykin v. Alabama,
___ ______ _______

395 U.S. 238 (1969), and Machibroda v. United States, 368 U.S.
__________ ______________

487 (1962)). "Though a legitimate prosecution promise does not

render a guilty plea legally involuntary, Brady v. United States,
_____ _____________

397 U.S. 742 (1970), its fulfillment is a necessary predicate to

a conclusion of voluntariness when a plea 'rests in any signifi-

cant degree' on it." Correale, 479 F.2d at 947 (quoting Santo-
________ ______

bello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 262 (1971)).
_____ ________

Ordinarily, "an issue not presented in the district

court will not be addressed for the first time on appeal."

United States v. Curzi, 867 F.2d 36, 44 (1st Cir. 1989). See
_____________ _____ ___

also United States v. Fox, 889 F.2d 357, 359 (1st Cir. 1989);
____ ______________ ___

United States v. Figueroa, 818 F.2d 1020, 1025 (1st Cir. 1987);
_____________ ________

United States v. Argentine, 814 F.2d 783, 791 (1st Cir. 1987).
______________ _________

An appellate court nevertheless has the discretionary power, in

an exceptional case, to resolve an issue not passed on below.

Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121 (1976). See United States
_________ _____ ___ _____________

4














v. La Guardia, 902 F.2d 1010, 1013 (1st Cir. 1990); United States
__________ _____________

v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d 289 (1st Cir. 1982). Although the discre-
________

tionary appellate power to consider an unpreserved issue should

be exercised sparingly, La Guardia, 902 F.2d at 1013, it is
___________

appropriately invoked if "'injustice might otherwise result.'"

Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121 (quoting Hormel v. Helvering, 312 U.S.
_________ ______ _________

552, 557 (1941)).

The issue belatedly raised on appeal exhibits charac-

teristics which we have considered sufficiently exceptional to

warrant appellate review in other cases. The issue is one of

law, as there is no dispute that the plea agreement was breached;

and the issue is susceptible of resolution on the present record.

See Krynicki, 689 F.2d at 291; see also La Guardia, 902 F.2d at
___ ________ ___ ____ __________

1013. Moreover, due to the nature of the breach, the only

question remaining is the appropriate remedy. See Krynicki, 689
___ ________

F.2d at 292; see also La Guardia, 902 F.2d at 1013. Finally,
___ ____ ___________

appellate deferral of the belated claim would not "aid the

administration of the criminal justice system," see Krynicki, 689
___ ________

F.2d at 292; see also La Guardia, 902 F.2d at 1013, and, most
___ ____ ___________

importantly, it might well result in a miscarriage of justice in

the present case. See Singleton, 428 U.S. at 121; La Guardia,
___ _________ __________

902 F.2d at 1013; Krynicki, 689 F.2d at 292.
________

There is no conceivable basis for concluding that the

government's promise to recommend a sentence within the GSR was

not a significant factor in inducing appellant's plea. See
___

Correale, 479 F.2d at 947. Moreover, the material misstatement
________


5














in the PSR that the government would make no sentencing

recommendation may well have misled the district court to

believe that the government was under no duty to recommend a
__ ____

sentence within the GSR. In these circumstances, we are not

prepared to assume either that the government's commitment to

recommend a sentence within the GSR was a matter of no signifi-

cance in obtaining appellant's guilty plea, see id., or that the
___ ___

court would not have given serious consideration to the govern-

ment's sentencing recommendation had it been made. Thus, we

cannot exclude all likelihood that appellant's waiver of consti-

tutional rights lacked the requisite voluntariness, see Correale,
___ ________

479 F.2d at 947, or that our failure to address the issue would

result in a miscarriage of justice. See Singleton, 428 U.S. at
___ _________

121 (appellate resolution of unpreserved issue may be appropriate

where injustice would otherwise result).2

The undisputed breach of a core provision in the plea

agreement, requiring the government to recommend a sentence

within the GSR, must be remedied.3 Normally, a plea bargain

breach by the government may be remedied either through specific

performance of the unperformed provision or by allowing the

defendant to withdraw the plea and proceed to trial. Kingsley v.
________

United States, 968 F.2d 109, 133 (1st Cir. 1992); United States
_____________ _____________

v. Canada, 960 F.2d 263, 271 (1st Cir. 1992); see Santobello v.
______ ___ __________

____________________

2We note as well that appellant is illiterate.

3Although we accept the government's assurances at oral
argument that its breach was inadvertent, "[t]hat . . . does not
lessen its impact." Santobello, 404 U.S. at 262.
__________

6














New York, 404 U.S. 257, 263 (1971). "In choosing a remedy, a
________

court must exercise its 'sound discretion . . . under the circum-

stances of each case.' . . . Specific performance, the less

extreme remedy, is preferred." Kingsley, 968 F.2d at 113 (cita-
________

tions omitted) (quoting United States v. Garcia, 698 F.2d 31, 37
_____________ ______

(1st Cir. 1983)).

We believe specific performance is appropriate in these

circumstances. Although it misapprehends the nature of the

breach,4 appellant's request for "resentencing with the express

instruction that appellant be sentenced within the [GSR]" indi-

cates appellant's preference for specific performance, rather

than withdrawal of the plea. Moreover, the choice of remedy

rests with the court, not with the defendant. Kingsley, 968 F.2d
________

at 113; Canada, 960 F.2d at 271. As specific performance would
______

not be "meaningless" in these circumstances, see id. at 114, but
___ ___

more appropriate than other remedies we might fashion, we vacate

the sentence and remand for resentencing before a different judge

in accordance with our normal practice. See Canada, 960 F.2d at
___ ______

271 (remanding for resentencing before a different judge to

remedy government's plea bargain breach).

Vacated and remanded for resentencing.
_______ ___ ________ ___ _____________




____________________

4Appellant's brief on appeal faults the district court's
failure to impose a sentence within the GSR. However, the plea
______
agreement expressly provides that "the sentence will be left
entirely to the sound discretion of the court . . ." Thus, the
appellant was not entitled to a sentence within the GSR, but to
the government's recommendation of such a sentence.
______________

7