United States v. LaPoint

• Decision Date: 01 May 2014
• Docket Number: No. CR 13–3045–MWB–1.,CR 13–3045–MWB–1.
• Citation: 16 F.Supp.3d 1006
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Charmagne C. LaPOINT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Iowa

16 F.Supp.3d 1006

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff
v.
Charmagne C. LaPOINT, Defendant.

No. CR 13–3045–MWB–1.

United States District Court, N.D. Iowa, Central Division.

Signed May 1, 2014.

16 F.Supp.3d 1007

Jamie D. Bowers, Us Attorney's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Plaintiff.

Bradley Ryan Hansen, Federal Public Defender's Office, Sioux City, IA, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER REGARDING PARTIES' RULE 11(c)(1)(C) PLEA AGREEMENT

MARK W. BENNETT, District Judge.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.	INTRODUCTION	1008
II.	ANALYSIS	1008

A.	Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Standards	1008
B.	Discussion	1009

III. CONCLUSION 1012

This case is before me following defendant Charmagne LaPoint's (LaPoint's) initial sentencing hearing, which occurred on March 26, 2014. LaPoint entered into an agreement with the Government, under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), in which she pleaded guilty to one count of mail theft by a Postal Service employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709. The parties agreed to a sentence of probation, plus restitution. At LaPoint's sentencing hearing, I expressed reservations about accepting the plea agreement because a sentence of probation—the low end of LaPoint's Guidelines range—fails to account for the non-monetary harm caused by her crime. I asked the parties to brief whether I could reject the plea agreement based on a policy disagreement with the theft guideline. After reviewing the parties' briefs, I reject their plea agreement, but for reasons other than a policy disagreement with the theft guideline.

16 F.Supp.3d 1008

INTRODUCTION

LaPoint pleaded guilty to one count of mail theft by a Postal Service employee, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1709, as part of a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement. In the agreement, LaPoint stipulated to stealing approximately 40 pieces of mail in 2013 while working as a Post Master Relief in Wesley, Iowa. She targeted mail that appeared to contain greeting cards and would steal any cash enclosed with the cards. LaPoint would then rip up the cards and throw them away at the post office or her home. In addition to cash, LaPoint stole six gift cards and a laptop computer from the mail. All told, LaPoint admitted to stealing money and property worth $1,294.95 and agreed to pay that amount in restitution.

The plea agreement does not tell the whole story, however. A statement from one of LaPoint's victims, an intended card recipient, reveals significant non-monetary harm caused by LaPoint's crime. The victim never received sympathy cards regarding her father, and could not thank those who sent their condolences, because LaPoint had torn the cards up. Because of LaPoint, the victim lost trust in the Postal Service, stopped mailing packages to her son in the military, and began traveling to neighboring cities to drop off her mail. Moreover, while the record contains only one victim impact statement, the record supports the fact that LaPoint deprived other victims—the other intended card recipients—of the support, condolences, and congratulations offered in the myriad types of greeting cards that LaPoint destroyed.

In light of these facts, I must determine whether to accept or reject the parties' Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement.

ANALYSIS

A. Rule 11(c)(1)(C) Standards

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C) provides that

[a]n attorney for the government and the defendant's attorney ... may discuss and reach a plea agreement ... specify[ing] that an attorney for the government will ... agree that a specific sentence or sentencing range is the appropriate disposition of the case, or that a particular provision of the Sentencing Guidelines, or policy statement, or sentencing factor does or does not apply (such a recommendation or request binds the court once the court accepts the plea agreement).

“[T]he court may accept the agreement, reject it, or defer a decision until the court has reviewed the presentence report.” Fed.R.Crim.P. 11(c)(3)(A). A Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea agreement is binding on the court only if the court accepts it. United States v. Scurlark, 560 F.3d 839, 842 (8th Cir.2009). “Courts are not obligated to accept plea agreements and have discretion to reject those which are deemed ... unfair.” United States v. Kling, 516 F.3d 702, 704 (8th Cir.2008). While “[a] sentence imposed under a Rule 11(c)(1)(C) plea arises directly from the agreement itself, not from the Guidelines, ... the court can and should consult the Guidelines in deciding whether to accept the plea.” United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 364 (7th Cir.2005) (cited favorably in Scurlark, 560 F.3d at 842 ). “Rule 11(c)(1)(C) permits the defendant and the prosecutor to agree that a specific sentence is appropriate, but that agreement does not discharge the district court's...