United States v. Medina-Carrasco

Summarized by:

  • Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
  • Area(s) of Law: Criminal Law
  • Date Filed: 12-02-2015
  • Case #: 13-10397
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: Circuit Judge Graber for the Court; Circuit Judge Watford; Dissent by District Judge Friedman Jose Medina-Carrasco pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation via a fast-track plea agreement which contained a waiver of appellate rights clause. Pursuant to the agreement, Medina-Carrasco faced a potential imprisonment which ranged from four months to eighty-seven months, to be determined by the court based on Medina-Carrasco’s criminal history. The district court sentenced Medina-Carrasco to fifty-five months imprisonment. Medina-Carrasco appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit decided whether the waiver of appellate rights was unenforceable because the sentencing requirement was ambiguous. The plea agreement required Medina-Carrasco to be sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement. A plea agreement is not ambiguous regarding the potential sentence if the sentence given is within the range contemplated by the plea agreement. Medina-Carrasco faced up to eighty-seven months. His sentence falls within the range of potential sentences. The plea agreement was not ambiguous. DISMISSED.
  • Full Text Opinion

A plea agreement is not ambiguous if the sentence given is within the range contemplated by the plea agreement.

Jose Medina-Carrasco pleaded guilty to one count of illegal reentry after deportation via a fast-track plea agreement which contained a waiver of appellate rights clause. Pursuant to the agreement, Medina-Carrasco faced a potential imprisonment which ranged from four months to eighty-seven months, to be determined by the court based on Medina-Carrasco’s criminal history. The district court sentenced Medina-Carrasco to fifty-five months imprisonment. Medina-Carrasco appealed. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit decided whether the waiver of appellate rights was unenforceable because the sentencing requirement was ambiguous. The plea agreement required Medina-Carrasco to be sentenced “in accordance with” the plea agreement. A plea agreement is not ambiguous regarding the potential sentence if the sentence given is within the range contemplated by the plea agreement. Medina-Carrasco faced up to eighty-seven months. His sentence falls within the range of potential sentences. The plea agreement was not ambiguous. DISMISSED.

Advanced Search