UNITED STATES V. HODGE 412 F.3d 479 (3rd Cir. 2005) CASE BRIEF

UNITED STATES V. HODGE

412 F.3d 479 (3rd Cir. 2005)

NATURE OF THE CASE: Devin Hodge (D) appealed a judgment of life in prison after he pleaded guilty to first-degree murder.

FACTS: A federal grand jury indicted D, Irvine (his brother), and a third defendant for murder of the owner of the Emerald Lady Jewelry Store. At D's initiation, D and the government were engaged in intense discussions about a plea bargain. The plea agreement stated that P will recommend three points off for extraordinary acceptance of responsibility if all those involved each accept the plea. P made no representation for probation nor as to what calculations, or the Court's position on those calculations, may be. P agreed 'to make no specific sentencing recommendation other than to request that the sentence be within the guideline range.' D and his brother Irvine pleaded guilty to murdering the owner of a St. Thomas jewelry store. They did so as part of the 'package deal.' Counsel present agreed that the maximum sentence could be life in prison and each brother was questioned separately about what rights they were giving up by pleading guilty. The brothers answered affirmatively to their understanding what rights they gave up. The court was not informed of the dual nature of the plea agreement. During the determination of sentencing P made statements about how D had not turned his life around if he were ever permitted back into the community. The brothers were sentenced to life in prison. D appealed; P reneged on its promise in the plea agreement to recommend no specific sentence. P contends the government implicitly requested a life sentence by rhetorically asking, 'does the community at large have to wonder once his sentence is completed and he's released back into the community, whether it's a genuine change or not?' He also maintains that the government impliedly sought a life sentence by asking for a sentence that was 'fair and just' to the victims of his alleged crime, including the wife of the deceased owner of the Emerald Lady. Even if such breaches were inadvertent, P contends, vacatur of his sentence would be required because prosecutors must carefully be held to plea agreements.

ISSUE:

RULE OF LAW:

HOLDING AND DECISION:

LEGAL ANALYSIS:

Get free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online

for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.

https://bsmsphd.com

© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner