U.S. v. Hyde

• Decision Date: 27 May 1997
• Docket Number: 96667
• Citation: 117 S.Ct. 1630,520 U.S. 670,137 L.Ed.2d 935
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. Robert E. HYDE
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

520 U.S. 670

117 S.Ct. 1630

137 L.Ed.2d 935

UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v Robert E. HYDE.

No. 96-667.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued April 15, 1997.

Decided May 27, 1997.

Syllabus ^*

Respondent pleaded guilty to several federal fraud counts, pursuant to a plea agreement in which the Government agreed to move for dismissal of other charges. The District Court accepted the plea but deferred decision on whether to accept the plea agreement, pending completion of the presentence report. Before sentencing and the court's decision on the plea agreement, respondent sought to withdraw his plea. Finding that he had not provided a "fair and just reason'' for withdrawing the plea before sentencing, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(e), the court denied respondent's request. The court then accepted the plea agreement, entered judgment, and sentenced respondent. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that if a court defers acceptance of a plea or of a plea agreement, a defendant may withdraw his plea for any or no reason, until the court accepts both the plea and the agreement.

Held: In the circumstances presented here, a defendant may not withdraw his plea unless he shows a "fair and just reason'' under Rule 32(e). Nothing in the text of Rule 11, which sets out the prerequisites to accepting a guilty plea and plea agreement, supports the Court of Appeals' holding. That text shows that guilty pleas can be accepted while plea agreements are deferred and the acceptance of the two can be separated in time. The Court of Appeals' requirement that a district court shall not accept a guilty plea without accepting the plea agreement is absent from the list of prerequisites to accepting a plea set out in Rule 11(c) and (d). If a court decides to reject a plea agreement such as the one here, the defendant is given "the opportunity to then withdraw the plea,'' Rule 11(e)(4), and he does not have to comply with Rule 32(e)'s "fair and just reason'' requirement. This provision implements the commonsense notion that a defendant can no longer be bound by an agreement that the court has refused to sanction, and its necessary implication is that if the court has neither rejected nor accepted the agreement, the defendant is not granted the "opportunity'' to automatically withdraw his plea. The Court of Appeals' holding contradicts this implication and thus strips Rule 11(e)(4) of any meaning. It also debases the judicial proceeding at which a defendant pleads and the court accepts his plea by allowing him to withdraw his plea simply on a lark. In addition, the holding would allow little, if any, time for the "fair and just reason'' standard to apply, for a court's decision to accept a plea agreement is often made at the sentencing hearing. Respondent's arguments-that the "fair and just reason'' standard was not meant to apply to guilty pleas conditioned on acceptance of the plea agreement, and that the Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 32(b)(3) support the Court of Appeals' holding-are rejected. Pp. ____-____.

92 F.3d 779, reversed.

REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

James A. Feldman, for petitioner.

Jonathan D. Soglin, appointed by this Court, Oakland, CA, for respondent.

Chief Justice REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Rule 32(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states that a district court may allow a defendant to withdraw his guilty plea before he is sentenced "if the defendant shows any fair and just reason.'' After the defendant in this case pleaded guilty, pursuant to a plea agreement, the District Court accepted his plea but deferred decision on whether to accept the plea agreement. The defendant then sought to withdraw his plea. We hold that in such circumstances a defendant may not withdraw his plea unless he shows a "fair and just reason'' under Rule 32(e).

A federal grand jury indicted respondent Robert Hyde on eight counts of mail fraud, wire fraud, and other fraud-related crimes. On the morning of his trial, respondent indicated his desire to enter plea negotiations with the Government. Those negotiations produced a plea agreement in which respondent agreed to plead guilty to four of the counts. In exchange, the Government agreed to move to dismiss the remaining four counts and not to bring further charges against respondent for other allegedly fraudulent conduct.

That afternoon, the parties appeared again before the District Court and submitted the plea agreement to the court, along with respondent's "application for permission to enter [a] plea of guilty.'' After placing respondent under oath, the court questioned him extensively to ensure that his plea was knowing and voluntary, and that he understood the consequences of pleading guilty, including the possibility of a maximum sentence of 30 years. The court asked respondent what he had done, and respondent admitted committing the crimes set out in the four counts. The court then asked the Government to set out what it was prepared to prove, and the Government did so. The court asked respondent whether he was pleading guilty because he was in fact guilty of the crimes set out in the four counts. Respondent said that he was. Finally, the court asked respondent how he pleaded to each count, and respondent stated "guilty.''

The District Court concluded that respondent was pleading guilty knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The court therefore stated that it was accepting respondent's guilty plea. It also stated that it was deferring decision on whether to accept the plea agreement, pending completion of the presentence report.

One month later, before sentencing and the District Court's decision about whether to accept the plea agreement, respondent filed a motion to withdraw his guilty plea. His motion alleged that he had pleaded guilty under duress from the Government and that his admissions to the District Court had in fact been false. After holding an evidentiary hearing, the court concluded that there was no evidence to support respondent's claim of duress, and that respondent had not provided a "fair and just reason'' for withdrawing his guilty plea, as required by Rule 32(e). The court therefore refused to let respondent withdraw his guilty plea. The court then accepted the plea agreement, entered judgment against respondent on the first four counts, dismissed the indictment's remaining four counts on the Government's motion, and sentenced respondent to a prison term of 2%p1/2%p years.

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that respondent had an absolute right to withdraw his guilty plea before the District Court accepted the plea agreement. 92 F.3d 779, 781 (1996). The court reasoned as follows: First, before a district court has accepted a defendant's guilty plea, the defendant has an absolute right to withdraw that plea. Id., at 780 (citing United States v. Washman, 66 F.3d 210, 212-213 (C.A.9 1995)). Second, the guilty plea and the plea agreement are ""inextricably bound up together,''' such that the court's deferral of the decision whether to accept the plea agreement also constitutes an automatic deferral of its decision whether to accept the guilty plea, even if the court explicitly states that it is accepting the guilty plea. Ibid. (quoting United States v. Cordova-Perez, 65 F.3d 1552, 1556 (C.A.9 1995)). Combining these two propositions, the Court of Appeals held that " [i]f the court defers acceptance of the plea or of the plea agreement, the defendant may withdraw his plea for any reason or for no reason, until the time that the court does accept both the plea and the agreement.'' Id., at 781.

The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Seventh Circuits have reached the opposite conclusion on this issue. United States v. Ewing, 957 F.2d 115, 118-119 (C.A.4 1992); United States v. Ellison, 798 F.2d 1102, 1106 (C.A.7 1986). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 519 U.S. ----, 117 S.Ct. 759, 136 L.Ed.2d 695 (1997), and now reverse.

To understand why we hold that Rule 32(e) governs here, we must go back to Rule 11, the principal provision in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dealing with the subject of guilty pleas and plea agreements. The Court of Appeals equated acceptance of the guilty plea with acceptance of the plea agreement, and deferral of the plea agreement with deferral of the guilty plea. Nothing in the text of Rule 11 supports these conclusions. In fact, the text shows that the opposite is true: guilty pleas can be accepted while plea agreements are deferred, and the acceptance of the two can be separated in time.

The prerequisites to accepting a guilty plea are set out in sections (c) and (d) of Rule 11. Section (c) says: "Before accepting a plea of guilty . . . , the court must address the defendant personally in open court and inform the defendant of, and determine that the defendant understands,'' numerous consequences of pleading guilty. For example, the court must ensure the defendant understands the maximum possible penalty that he may face by pleading guilty, Rule 11(c)(1), and the important constitutional rights he is waiving, including the right to a trial, Rule 11(c)(3), (4). Section (d) says: "The court shall not accept a plea of guilty . . . without first, by addressing the defendant personally in open court, determining that the plea is voluntary.''¹ The opening words of these two sections are important: together, they speak of steps a district court must take " [b]efore accepting a plea of guilty,'' and without which it "shall not accept a plea of guilty.'' Based on this language, we conclude that once the court has taken these steps, it may, in its discretion, accept a defendant's guilty plea. The Court of Appeals would read an additional prerequisite into this list: a district court shall not accept a plea of guilty without first accepting the plea...