U.S. v. Jefferies

• Decision Date: 15 August 1990
• Docket Number: No. 89-8005,89-8005
• Citation: 908 F.2d 1520
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee JEFFERIES, Betty J. Jefferies, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Page 1520

908 F.2d 1520

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jimmy Lee JEFFERIES, Betty J. Jefferies, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 89-8005.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

Aug. 15, 1990.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 4, 1990.

Victoria D. Little, Decatur, Ga., for Jimmy Lee Jefferies.

Christopher W. Duncan, Toccoa, Ga., for Betty J. Jefferies.

Miriam Wansley Duke, Asst. U.S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for plaintiff-appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia.

Before CLARK, Circuit Judge, RONEY ^*, Senior Circuit Judge, and ATKINS ^**, Senior District Judge.

CLARK, Circuit Judge.

Appellants, Jimmy Lee Jefferies and Betty Jane Jefferies were indicted in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on December 10, 1987 in a multi-count multi-defendant indictment alleging multiple violations of the federal drug and tax laws. Included in the indictment were the Jefferies' two children, Sharon and Kenny. Both appellants pled guilty to count 20 of the indictment, alleging tax evasion in violation of 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7206(1). In addition, Jimmy Jefferies pled guilty to count 2 of the indictment, which alleged possession of cocaine with the intention to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. Sec. 841(a)(1). As part of the plea agreement, the charges against the Jefferies' children were dropped. Both defendants were sentenced to three years on the tax count. Jimmy Jefferies was sentenced to a 10-year sentence on the drug count to run consecutively with the tax sentence and to be followed by a 5-year term of supervised release. In addition, the defendants were jointly and severely fined $100,000. They now appeal those sentences.

FACTS

Twice in December 1986, the government executed search warrants on the Jefferies' residence. On the first occasion, a package containing 13 grams of cocaine was seized from a toilet in the Jefferies' bathroom. At the time of the search, the bathroom was occupied by a painter. The Jefferies denied any knowledge of the cocaine. At this time and during a second search later that month, some of the family's business records were seized. The defendants sought to suppress the information on the grounds that the affidavit supporting the warrant was based on intentional misstatements. After the defendants filed a suppression motion, they entered into plea negotiations with the government.

Negotiations were held between the attorneys for the defendants, Victoria Little and Christopher Duncan, and Assistant United States Attorney Edward Lukemire. After some preliminary negotiations over the phone, the parties held a meeting to work out a final agreement. Lukemire brought a draft plea agreement to the meeting which was held in Macon, Georgia on October 10, 1988. At that meeting, the defendants and Lukemire worked out a final agreement which was signed by the defendants, their attorneys and Lukemire. Lukemire and the defendants presented the plea to the district court that same day.

The plea agreement provided that both Betty and Jimmy Jefferies would plead guilty to tax evasion and Jimmy Jefferies would plead guilty to possession of cocaine. ¹ The agreement was explicitly amended during the negotiations to stipulate that the quantity of cocaine involved in the drug offense was 13 grams. The plea also indicated that the parties had agreed that the sentence would be at most ten years on the drug count and left the sentence on the tax count to the court's discretion. In addition, a reference to allowing the court discretion to fine the defendants was also deleted. The defendants agreed to forfeit substantial assets, including their home. The government agreed to drop all the other charges against the Jefferies. The government also agreed not to bring charges against the Jefferies for any other offenses currently known to them. Sharon and Kenny Jefferies agreed to the forfeiture of their assets in exchange for the charges against them being dropped.

The sentencing hearing was held December 19-20, 1988. By that time Mr. Lukemire had left government service and the case was transferred to Assistant United States Attorney Miriam Duke. Ms. Duke interpreted the plea agreement as not requiring

                the government to "stand mute at sentencing."    Government's Brief at 6.  Consequently, the government provided the probation officer compiling the presentence investigation reports on the Jefferies with information indicating that the Jefferies had been involved in large scale drug trafficking.  At the sentencing hearing the government presented this evidence to support the presentence reports over the objections of the defendants that the government was violating the plea agreement.  Based upon this information, the district court found that the offense involved 15 kilograms of cocaine and applied this finding to both defendants.  After accepting the pleas and the agreement, the court imposed sentence.  In this appeal the defendants raise four objections to the sentence imposed by the district court.  Only the claim relating to the plea agreement merits extended discussion. 2
                

DISCUSSION

Both defendants point to several violations of the plea agreement both by the court and by the government. The government, in their response to these contentions, argues that the plea agreement was not violated. The government's arguments are based on interpretations of the plea agreement that are inconsistent with the agreement. The differing constructions are based on different theories of how a plea agreement should be interpreted. Therefore, we begin our analysis of this claim with an summary of the rules applicable to the construction of a plea agreement. We then proceed to examine the plea agreement to determine which interpretation of the agreement is correct, and conclude with an analysis of the consequences of our interpretation of the agreement.

A.

Plea agreements are interpreted and applied in a manner that is sometimes likened to contractual interpretation. This analogy, however, should not be taken too far. In In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200, 1203 (11th Cir.1986), this court summarized the standards applied to interpretation of plea agreements. First, the court noted that a "hyper-technical reading of the written agreement" and "a rigidly literal approach in the construction of language" should not be accepted. Id. Second, the written agreement should be viewed "against the background of the negotiations" and should not be interpreted to "directly contradic[t] [an] oral understanding." Id. Finally, a plea agreement that is ambiguous "must be read against the government." Id. (citing United States v. Harvey, 791 F.2d 294, 303 (4th Cir.1986)). The rational for this method of interpretation is that a plea agreement must be construed in light of the fact that it constitutes a waiver of "substantial constitutional rights" requiring that the defendant be adequately warned of the consequences of the plea. Arnett, 804 F.2d at 1203.

In this case the defendants challenge the government's interpretation of the plea agreement. The defendants allege that Ms. Duke's conduct at the sentencing proceeding was inconsistent with the agreement they worked out with Mr. Lukemire. The defendants base much of their arguments on oral understandings and the negotiating history of the agreement. To support these arguments, the defendants supplemented the record on appeal with the original draft of the plea agreement and affidavits from their attorneys who attended the plea negotiations. The affidavits submitted by the defendants relate to oral agreements and understandings made between Lukemire and the defendants' attorneys. The government has not denied these oral agreements and understandings. Rather, the government takes the position that the written plea agreement does not preclude either its conduct at sentencing or

the actual sentences the defendants received. Therefore, in resolving this claim, we accept the allegations of the defendants contained in the affidavits filed in this court. ³

B.

The first dispute concerns the issue of the five year term of supervised release imposed on Jimmy Jefferies. The plea agreement does not mention supervised release. In addition, the issue apparently was not discussed either during the plea negotiations or during any of the proceedings before the district court. Therefore, it cannot be said that the term of supervised release is an explicit part of the plea agreement. In paragraph 6(b) of the agreement, the government agreed that "any sentence of imprisonment" for count two "not exceed ten years." The defendant argues that this language limits the court's ability to impose a term of supervised release. The government, on the other hand, argues that since it was not mentioned, the question of supervised release was left to the judge's discretion.

We decline to decide whether the district court's imposition of this term violated the agreement because the defendant did not raise this issue in the district court. Generally, we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Cf. Fed.R.Crim.P. 51 (party need not "except" to rulings, but must make "known to the court the action which that party desires the court to take or that party's objection to the action of the court and the grounds therefore"). Recently, we have confirmed that this doctrine applies to errors regarding the sentence imposed. See United States v. Prichett, 898 F.2d 130, 131 (11th Cir.1990) (per curiam) (government's failure to object to district court's departure from sentencing guidelines "fatal" to its appeal). The purpose of this doctrine is to give the district court the opportunity to correct its errors. Id. Because Jefferies did not object to the term of supervised release as a violation of plea agreement, he has waived the right to appeal this issue. ⁴

We note that Jefferies had ample opportunity to raise this issue after his...