United States v. Benchimol

In 1976, Joseph Benchimol (defendant) pleaded guilty to mail fraud pursuant to a plea bargain with the federal government (plaintiff). As part of the plea bargain, the government agreed to recommend that Benchimol be sentenced to probation if he made restitution. However, the presentence report inaccurately stated that the government had no recommendation for Benchimol’s sentence. When Benchimol’s counsel informed the court that the presentence report was inaccurate and that the government was actually recommending probation with restitution, the assistant United States attorney (AUSA) present at the hearing stated, “That is an accurate representation.” The district court ultimately disregarded the probation-with-restitution recommendation and instead sentenced Benchimol to six years of treatment and supervision under the Youth Corrections Act. Benchimol was released on parole after serving 18 months of his sentence, but he was arrested for a parole violation in 1981. A few days before his arrest, Benchimol filed a motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 seeking to withdraw his guilty plea. In the alternative, Benchimol sought to have his original sentence vacated and to be resentenced to the 18 months he had already served. In support of his motion, Benchimol claimed that the government had failed to uphold its part of the plea bargain pursuant to which he had originally pleaded guilty. The district court denied Benchimol’s motion, but a federal appellate court reversed. The appellate court held that the government had breached the plea bargain because, during the sentencing hearing, the AUSA had merely indicated that Benchimol’s counsel had accurately conveyed the government’s recommendation, rather than explaining the government’s reasons for supporting leniency. The appellate court concluded that the AUSA’s statement had left the sentencing court with a misimpression that the government did not enthusiastically support a lenient sentence. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari and issued a summary per curiam decision prior to receiving full briefing or holding oral argument.