Sandoval-Lopez

United States v. Sandoval-Lopez

Bad Law
122 F.3d 797·97 Daily Journal DAR 10339·1997 WL 448264·1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 21037·97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6330
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAugust 8, 1997Nos. 96-30249, 96-30250California2,904 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Reinhardt, J.

This case involves nothing more than a simple, albeit novel, question of contract law: Did the defendants repudiate or breach their plea agreements in collaterally attacking their convictions when, because of a change in the law, the conduct to which they pled guilty was no longer a crime? We conclude that they did not, and therefore reverse.

I. Background

Defendants Jose Maria Sandoval-Lopez and Joaquin Sandoval-Lopez were indicted on federal drug trafficking charges. They were also charged with two counts each of using or carrying a firearm in the commission of a drug trafficking offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924 (c)(1) (the “gun counts”). 1 On the fourth day of trial, they accepted the government’s offer of plea bargains. Under the plea agreements, the defendants each pled guilty to the two gun counts. In return, the government agreed to drop the drug trafficking charges and to ask that the defendants be sentenced to ten years (five per count), which the parties and the court all believed was the mandatory minimum under the statute. The district court initially accepted the pleas on those terms.

Subsequently, however, the district court determined that the defendants’…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.